![]() |
Quote:
It is attitudes like yours that scare me when it comes to jury trials. Too often jurors get hung up on irrelevant issues and humanistic things and disregard the actual law. The sad part is that if the lawsuit goes to trial and gets to a jury, the jury will probably do the very same thing you are doing. People need to understand that unsympathetic plaintiffs deserve their day in court as well if they have legitimate legal issues. |
Quote:
I'm definitely not a medmal guy and don't (yet) do civil rights cases, although I'm planning on getting around to calling up the federal Bar's pro bono folks to do pro bono prisoner civil rights claims against the state.... so maybe in a couple years I'll revive this thread and wax eloquent on the requirements of 42 USC 1983, et. seq... but not today :) |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yeah, you do have to prove damages. She wouldn't likely be able to prove special damages (unless the bill for the tubal ligation was more than a bill would be for the IUD), but she could perhaps get general damages. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
If it later turns out that she asked for the ligation (which I doubt) then that would be a different story. But somehow I think if that was really the case, gag order or not, that information would have been leaked by now. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Hypothetically, if only nominal damages are proved on the battery, the lawyer is going to lose lots of money on this case. You're a law student, so you probably don't have a lot of experience at evaluating cases based upon whether they'll help you pay your student loans or whether they'll waste many hours of your time, cost you an arm and a leg and leave you with nothing. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Publicity. I don't have student loans. :cool: I'm a law student, but I do have plain common sense. It is pretty obvious when some cases are a waste of time. Others, not so much. There isn't enough information to say it is a waste of time just yet. |
I'm also a law student, but I'm not going to go on a public forum and begin talking about Tort law as if I am an expert. From a legal perspective, if she didn't sign a consent form, they were wrong. From a personal perspective, people who can't take care of the children they already have and who have had parental rights already terminated should be sterilized and they should also be charged with child neglect.
Here come the flames. I am a former caseworker and counselor. I've watched women with drug addictions and parental rights terminated, who lived on the system, complain when CYS didn't give them more handouts than they already got. I've seen people play the system like a fiddle, on more than one occasion. I saw it every day. Because this thread is based on her being sterilized, I will attempt to refrain from putting my personal opinion into the discussion regarding child rearing (it seems I already failed above). Legally, I don't even know how you could walk into an office and say, "give me surgery using this item." I know that even to get a new piercing (when I got my belly button re-pierced) I was not allowed to use an old earring that I soaked in alcohol. The tattoo/ piercing artist did not want to use items that they don't sell to cover their own butts. With malpractice being such a hot button issue, why would a Doctor be okay with that? I'm not a Doctor-so if anyone here is or is in med school, please explain. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This just makes no sense to me because like als463 said, I've never even seen any of my friends be allowed to get a piercing (from ears to everything else) and "bring their own." |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:00 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.