Lawyers won't take my case. Do I have a case?? Advice please!

[asiny]

I don't feel like I everyone needs to agree with me but at the same time I have all the facts in front in me. I contacted another attorney today and he has said that it sounds like I may have a case, but he needs more evidence.

I have an appointment next week to talk with the surgeon who operated on my dad to get clearer answers.

I sincerely wish you the best in this - and please return here to let us all know how this progresses. Anything that happens in this instance might prove useful to other users in the future.

 

[Truegoddess22]

I sincerely wish you the best in this - and please return here to let us all know how this progresses. Anything that happens in this instance might prove useful to other users in the future.

Will do.

 

[petman]

Hey Proserpina!

Your all-knowing and wise comment earlier: "I would put money on your father having a history of IHD." exposes the fact that you don't really care about the actual facts, and are willing to gamble with other peoples' lives instead of having an actual bit of advice that offers a viable strategy along with a tactical means of exercising that strategy. Being "willing to put money on" advice is completely unprofessional and you are the one walking a fine "thread" here between sound legal advice and sounding-off on your own arrogance! You make broadly sweeping comments about the risks associated with listening to the advice I have offered this woman without offering even an inkling of professionalism to qualify your statements with something factual on which to base them. These are known as "grounds" to the rest of the legal community. Why don't you just knock it off and stop embarrassing yourself? If you have no grounds to back up what you say then zip it please.

 

[Zigner]

Your all-knowing and wise comment earlier: "I would put money on your father having a history of IHD." exposes the fact that you don't really care about the actual facts, and are willing to gamble with other peoples' lives instead of having an actual bit of advice that offers a viable strategy along with a tactical means of exercising that strategy. Being "willing to put money on" advice is completely unprofessional and you are the one walking a fine "thread" here between sound legal advice and sounding-off on your own arrogance! You make broadly sweeping comments about the risks associated with listening to the advice I have offered this woman without offering even an inkling of professionalism to qualify your statements with something factual on which to base them. These are known as "grounds" to the rest of the legal community. Why don't you just knock it off and stop embarrassing yourself? If you have no grounds to back up what you say then zip it please.

Oh BROTHER!

 

[asiny]

Your all-knowing and wise comment earlier: "I would put money on your father having a history of IHD." exposes the fact that you don't really care about the actual facts, and are willing to gamble with other peoples' lives instead of having an actual bit of advice that offers a viable strategy along with a tactical means of exercising that strategy. Being "willing to put money on" advice is completely unprofessional and you are the one walking a fine "thread" here between sound legal advice and sounding-off on your own arrogance! You make broadly sweeping comments about the risks associated with listening to the advice I have offered this woman without offering even an inkling of professionalism to qualify your statements with something factual on which to base them. These are known as "grounds" to the rest of the legal community. Why don't you just knock it off and stop embarrassing yourself? If you have no grounds to back up what you say then zip it please.

This coming from an attorney, right?
And Prosperina is right - no attorney in their right mind would every mention "homocide" (is that what happens when a gay person is murdered ) in regards to the OPs query.
So you basically are saying that her father never just died due to - possible - malpractice... he was murdered.

 

[Zigner]

This coming from an attorney, right?
And Prosperina is right - no attorney in their right mind would every mention "homocide" (is that what happens when a gay person is murdered ) in regards to the OPs query.
So you basically are saying that her father never just died due to - possible - malpractice... he was murdered.

Homicide does not mean "murder"

Not agreeing with the guy...I'm just sayin'

 

[asiny]

Not agreeing with the guy...I'm just sayin'

Homicide does not mean "murder"

Even forgoing the use of the definition "murder". How would you define;

Oxford Dictionary; Homicide
the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder:

 

[petman]

Chuckle!

None of you are lawyers really. What lawyer looks up the word "homicide" in the "Oxford" dictionary to find out what it means in 2011? The literal translation simply means homo = man; cide = cut off. Truegoddess' father was indeed a "man" who was "cut off" from this earth. Homocide can be anything from "unintentional-manslaughter" to "premeditated-murder" with lots inbetween. Even unintentional-manslaughter can lead to criminal prosecution if the perpetrator was grossly negligent and in some cases just negligent.

OP, by your own admission of facts, dad was going to die no matter what they did. His choice was to try and prolong his life by the decision he made. The lawyers recognize this and know even if they could find a sympathetic jury the facts speak for themselves. You have my utmost sympathy. My father died making the same decisions. We choose to dwell on the fact that he was able to live all but the last year or so of his life the way he wanted. I hope you can do the same.

I must be crazy, since everyone seems to think their advice is so sensible and my advice is not. If you take a close look; the first thing I did was give a disclaimer stating "I am not a lawyer!" All you sharp lawyers out there seemed to miss that little detail. So when lawyers say things like "He's got to be a troll..." or, "...he's way off, legally speaking." or, "...anyone [lawyer] with half a brain cell..." you unknowingly expose your own ignorance and possible loss of brain cells, but mostly your inability to recognize relevant details which provide grounds for filing a civil claim. I thought this was an essential quality for any capable attorney to have. Again, my advice is not legal advice and does not give instruction to truegoddess on how to proceed legally. I hope she was able to read my advice before you removed my posts, because the benefit of the advice was to point out what you attorneys were all overlooking: The facts that have merit to this case. truegoddess, right now you are focused on the facts that the doctors want you to focus on. Those that are difficult or impossible to prove. You then presented those facts to this forum as "the facts of the case". Indeed, the facts in their entirety that pertain to this case are much broader and deeper, yet not so obvious to some. Focus on the obvious. You know that your dad died prematurely as a direct result of the surgery performed that removed his entire right lung. (note: I am not saying you can prove this, what I am saying is that you, personally, know this in your gut. You were there, a front row spectator, and this game was for your father's life. I believe you were paying very close attention. So if something in your gut is nagging you, there is absolutely no reason why you should take the advice you've been given here, and ignore it! If the evidence was there, then it's still there, now go and gather it all to one place. Then you make the decision of whether or not there is a case. If you decide there is, then go a find a lawyer who will work hard for justice in your case. OHRoadWarrior correctly comments that "dad was going to die no matter what they did." But come on, we're all going to die no matter what anyone does! That line of thinking does not belong anywhere near this case or any civil tort case! Imagine loosing a child because of a drunk driver and then having your own attorney question your motive for filing the suit by saying something like: "Are you just doing this for the money? Cause you know your daughter would've died eventually even if that drunk driver hadn't killed her?" Aren't the obviously more important questions to ask: 1)when would Dad likely have died if they had just done nothing? 2)Did Dad know that the decision he made to allow them to perform the surgery necessary to remove a "small" tumor could result in his entire right lung being removed? 3)Was he ever given the choice to leave his lung intact if removing only the tumor was discovered to be impossible during the surgery? His pre-op choices would have been between removing the entire lung which could very well result in immediately death, or leave the lung intact resulting in certain death anyway at some indefinite time in the not too distant future. If it's likely that all of us would choose the latter, then he in fact never was given the pre-op choice. A choice that by its' own virtue, belonged to no one else but your Dad! Did Dad have a choice!? Other posters strongly suggested that any "lawyer" who mentions the word "homocide" can't possibly be a trustworthy and reliable lawyer. What the heck! Have I just arrived at the Twilight Zone? If someone inflicted death on my father, whether intentional or not, the last thing I'm going to worry about is "offending" the perpetrator of death and his legal team with the word "homocide". Get real people. Your dad made a decision to take a small risk on the operating table in exchange for the possibility of extending his life a little longer. That was the choice he made. You gave no indication in this forum that he relinquished his right to freely choose for himself whether to keep his right lung or not. It seems likely that he was never given the choice to relinquish to these doctors the right to do anything that they saw fit to do. Your dad was trying to make the best choice for himself and his loved ones, he was not a gambler, and he did not choose (as some posters have suggested) to take a gamble with his own life. In general, lawyers take cases on a contingency if they can make a profit without too much effort (time invested, risk, etc.). It's a business. But just because your case appears on its' surface to be less than profitable for those who want [the same thing most reasonable lawyers would want] to be able to make an easy profit, doesn't mean you don't have a case. There are plenty of attorneys still out there that like a good challenge, and who don't mind pursuing a case that has "DIFFICULT" stamped all over it. The legal minds in this forum commented over and over that, "if no lawyer will take your case on a contingency, then you have no case.", while at the exact same time exposing their inability to grasp the relevant facts. Need I say more? I'm not saying they are incompetent and lazy, what I am saying is their responses to my comments, made them seem incompetent and lazy. But the fact that they removed one or more of my posts, I believe because the truth was undermining their legal position, does not make them look any more unprofessional, it just helps them hide it better. Truegoddess, you may never see this post but if you do remember this advice above all else: "Question with Boldness! Hold to the truth! Speak without fear!" G. Beck. Whether we agree or disagree with the ideology of others should not reflect on our judgement of their character. We should all be able to agree that when an individual knowingly, and willingly places themselves in harms way in order to do what they believe is right and for the good of their fellow countrymen; that individual is either hero or fool. Hero if they are right, fool if they are wrong! History will judge Beck, as it will judge us all. I hope we can all agree that Beck's quote, as it stands, all by itself, is profound.

 

[ecmst12]

It sure is a good thing that no one is going to be able to wade through that block of text to actually read that drivel.

 

[Proserpina]

It sure is a good thing that no one is going to be able to wade through that block of text to actually read that drivel.

Far more beneficial for our health not to do so.

 

[asiny]

1st - to the OP and everyone else - sorry for feeding the troll

This coming from an attorney, right?

I was not calling you an attorney.. I was being facetious in my question - because the advice you gave has no basis (legal or other).

None of you are lawyers really.

And you know this because?

What lawyer looks up the word "homicide" in the "Oxford" dictionary to find out what it means in 2011?

I know what HOMICIDE means, but the use of the word HOMOCIDE is ridiculous.. considering there is no-such word. The dictionary reference was was in regards to that 'murder' was not a definition of homicide.

The literal translation simply means homo = man; cide = cut off. Truegoddess' father was indeed a "man" who was "cut off" from this earth. Homocide can be anything from "unintentional-manslaughter" to "premeditated-murder" with lots inbetween. Even unintentional-manslaughter can lead to criminal prosecution if the perpetrator was grossly negligent and in some cases just negligent.

Not only did you not use the right word - you attempt to justify the use of the wrong word with a derived term, not actually listed in use.
Good job.

Lot's of words.

Did you seriously continue to stand by your decision that their father was s victim of 'homocide'? If that was the case - then why not tell the OP to goto the Police and file it as such? Probably because their is no 'homicide' - I am stopping the use of your made-up word.
There are many questions the OP has that remain un-answered. The OP has gone to several attorneys who have all turned down the case - and I doubt each of them are money only attorneys.

And here we have the coup de grace - quotes from the 'voice of reason' Glenn Beck.. really? At this comment, I feel like one of those characters in Shark Tank... I'm out. I believe the troll has been fed enough.