The real mystery is at what point did you leap to the conclusion and outcome of a hypothetical legal proceeding? How did you arrive at "Not enough to hang an MD to dry out with..."
Mfreddy was asking for advice about retaining an attorney to formally investigate causes of his son's medical condition. Mfreddy did not imply nor did he say anything, nor can it be reasonably assumed that he intends to hang a physician out to dry.
Legal discovery can uncover much more than informal off the cuff opinions. The application of legal discovery is very technical in nature and time consuming.
Those whose medical performance might come into question already have attorneys in place so why shouldn't Mfreddy avail himself of the resources of competent counsel?
salbam wrote: "What happened to presumtion (sic) of innocence?"
Your Honor, I rest my case.
Our malpractice sytem is broke. Nobody interested in answers - only $$. Once the discovery process is invoked, the MD is hosed. Increased malpractice rates or losing insurance altogether one strike and out now for many major insurers, time away from practice, lost revenue, and an an attorney interested in gotcha. They want to win and win bad. They are not interested in the truth. To get answers, a malpractice attorney is the wrong place to go.
Our malpractice sytem is broke. Nobody interested in answers - only $$. Once the discovery process is invoked, the MD is hosed. Increased malpractice rates or losing insurance altogether one strike and out now for many major insurers, time away from practice, lost revenue, and an an attorney interested in gotcha. They want to win and win bad. They are not interested in the truth. Our system is all about money and not about justice and the truth.