"One has nothing to lose other than a little time and possibly everything to gain by talking to a lawyer and weighing his options."
alibaba wrote:I disagree with you there. Here in Missouri, like many other states, the loser has to pay the legal fees of the winner. I've been involved in a case for 4 years now. The opposition has padded up their side with 3 attorneys and pile all sorts of fluff into the matter to pad up the bill to use as leverage to get us to settle. There have been offers to settle that are a pittance but the bottom line is it a gamble before the jury. Either way the opposition is getting paid. By the insurance company or by us if we do not prevail. It is not accurate to say there is no risk to sue. In a malpractice situation many states like ours have a cap on what you can collect. I am aware of one case here where the attorney fees were in excess of $175,000 and the damaged person received $6 grand + after all expenses. That person is a quadraplegic now. That is no compensation for a life in a wheel chair blowing through a straw but that was what it was settled for and approved by the court. The offer sounded nice till all fees were taken out and the victim receives the residual amount. You cannot sue for malpractice without another doctor specifying what mistake the doctor did. I find in my case every doctor says "I would not have done it that way" but none will specify that Milam acted in an improper manner. All say I have issues but also say those issues are common with infrapubic implants. Doctors just do not rat on each other most of the time. If your doctor was in another state then you have the issue of suing in federal court which is more expensive and more strict rules. Advice is to not take suing someone lightly. It is no game. There will be a winner and loser and things will be twisted many ways before the end.
True, the loser has to pay the legal fees of the winner--if the parties go to trial. However, as you probably already know, over 90% of all civil cases in America never go to trial. That's in the second place. In the first place, my claim was that one had nothing to lose other than a little time and possibly everything to gain by talking to a lawyer and weighing his options (emphasis mine). My point was that talking to a lawyer to see if one might possibly have grounds for a lawsuit doesn't cost anything. A person might choose not to pursue legal action after the free consultation with an attorney. Also, a person might retain an attorney to contact the other side to see if a settlement can be reach in lieu of filing a suit. So I believe my position that consulting with an attorney to weigh one's options involves little investment other than time is on solid ground.