SS: Lawyers/suits

[usedillusion]

So I was advised I should sue my previous doctors for failing to diagnose my lyme disease while it ran me down for 9 months, leaving me with residual neurological symptoms and thyroid disease (which has a whole other set of crappy lifelong symptoms). a lawyer took the case, telling me since the ramifications of lyme disease affected my life much more than it would've if it had been diagnosed earlier, i had a good case. keep in mind the basis of the case was that it was misdiagnosed for 9 months, NOT that i still have the disease.

great. maybe i can finally get revenge on that doctor who said i had psychosomatic symptoms, implying i just didnt want to go to school when it was later discovered i had a real live disease making its way through my body.

so he sends me to a couple doctors. one seems to be a friend of his he used as an expert witness in other lyme cases. he tests me and, to my astonishment, says i still have the disease, which he says will make my case even better. i know a trace of it, or its fingerprints, will always remain in my system, but to say i still HAVE it would imply it's active, which was shocking. i was worried yet suspicious. lawyer sends me to a different doctor because other doc is too far from me. this one, also seeming skeptical of the first guy's testing, tells me to get more in depth tests (a series of 10, actually) to find out if i really have it.

i call my lawyer and tell him. he says i can get the tests, but i don't have to. of course i don't have to; if i don't have it, it'll be damaging to the case. but being concerned about my health more than my lawsuit, i got the tests, they come out negative. i receive an $800 bill from the doctor. weeks ago, lawyer tells me he will discuss the bill with the office. at this point i was on the 8th of 10 tests ready to schedule the next one, but he never calls back.

i called him today, and more than a year after taking it, he tells me he doesn't think i have a strong case because i don't still have lyme disease. umm, that's funny, because when he took the case, it was presumed i didn't still have it. to top it off, he tells me the $800 was well spent since it establishes that i don't have it and i can pay it a little at a time, when it wasn't me who even elected to see any of these doctors! in other words, he sends me to doctors for the case HE took, he decides to drop it, and i'm stuck with the bill? wouldn't lawyers take WAY more cases if it was up to the client to pay expenses whether the case was won or not? i contacted the law office that referred him to me and they're going to call me tomorrow.

advice? thanks, if you even got this far.

[nickel]

well first off, i am glad you got diagnosed FINALLY, and feel better.

i so hate doctors who think symptoms are psychological and you have to go to bat for yourself, and work hard convincing them to finally get to the bottom of the issue. the kicker is you don't feel well and don't need the added bullsh#t.

i cannot stand frivilous lawsuits, but i do agree with ones where someone needs to be taught a lesson. you wanna bet said doctor is testing for lyme disease now in his patients that present with symptoms?

i think the lawyer you have sucks. he is bailing b/c he doesn't see that the odds are gonna make him some legitimate bucks. are you willing to seek other counsel?

[ufcrusher]

Speaking for the lawyers out there, the costs of running tests are part of your expenses for bringing the case. Even if he brought the case and won, he would have just taken the cost of the test out of your winning/settlement amount. It is not the lawyers cost to bear.

What state are you in? Did you ever check whether the attorney had a record of discipline? Did you check on his specialties (if any)?

Frankly, the information you provided seems odd to me. I dont know many PI attorneys who wouldnt run tests to show what illnesses you are currently suffering from and determine if there was a causal relationship with the underlying misdiagnosis. Your entire case rests on what happened to you because of the misdiagnosis, not the mere fact that there was a misdiagnosis.


As for Nickels comment about bailing because you arent going to win, there are laws that bar frivilious lawsuits and actions which can be taken against both the client and the attorney for bringing them. If there is nothing indicating that there is a viable case, he CANT bring the case to trial.

[usedillusion]

thanks nickel. it indeed ravaged a good portion of my young life, but it could be worse.

i am in pennsylvania. i don't know what his specialty was; i was referred to him by another law firm. i know he had dealt with similar lyme disease cases in the past and won, but i think those clients might have suffered more dire consequences.

i got this from another lawyer's site: In short, contingency fees must reflect the degree of risk and the time and expense involved in handling medical malpractice cases. Remember, even if the lawyer spends $50,000 of his own money on the case and you lose, you owe the lawyer nothing.

I know he would've taken like 40% plus medical fees IF i won, but i guess i was under the impression his taking the case was him taking the risk of investing time and expense without guaranteed reimbursement.

i mean if he knew i had to pay for this all along, why not at least send me to someone who takes my insurance? or tell me hey, you have to continue to carry the active disease in order for this case to be feasible.in which case i would've looked at my own records and walked out. the point was that it left me with active symptoms. his guy scared me telling me i still had it, or i would've never had those follow-ups in the first place.

thanks for the response uf.

[ufcrusher]

Playing the Devils Advocate here, the attorney would say that I agreed to contingency based on what you told me, which turned out to be wrong. I would never have taken the case given the true facts and as such, you are liable for the costs.

Back to me: Look at your paperwork that you agreed to at the beginning of the case, (retainer agreement/fee agreement, which are required, even more important in contingency agreeements). See what it says, it probably dictates what happens in the event that the case turns out not to be able to go to trial.

[InfiniteNothing]

Playing the Devils Advocate here, the attorney would say that I agreed to contingency based on what you told me, which turned out to be wrong. I would never have taken the case given the true facts and as such, you are liable for the costs.

Back to me: Look at your paperwork that you agreed to at the beginning of the case, (retainer agreement/fee agreement, which are required, even more important in contingency agreeements). See what it says, it probably dictates what happens in the event that the case turns out not to be able to go to trial.

I don't think he ever represented that he currently had lyme disease. And in any case, the lawyer should have specifically said that the medical costs wouldn't come out of his pocket. It's easy to assume he has something worked out with the doctor because of the refferal. It's unethical not to disclose every cost the customer will encounter at the begining under all circumstances because the customer is often new to the legal process....Interesting choice of phrase: "Playing devil's advocate"

[ufcrusher]

I don't think he ever represented that he currently had lyme disease. And in any case, the lawyer should have specifically said that the medical costs wouldn't come out of his pocket. It's easy to assume he has something worked out with the doctor because of the refferal. It's unethical not to disclose every cost the customer will encounter at the begining under all circumstances because the customer is often new to the legal process....Interesting choice of phrase: "Playing devil's advocate"

This is why I said to check the agreement. Everything should be spelled out there.

As for the referral, the attorney cant get any benefit out of it, at least here in California.

[mojo]

this whole thing has me particularly mad. i admit i may be biased, but it just seemed too much like a railroading deal.

imho, if the case was contingent upon still having lyme disease, that should have been made very clear up front. and even a lawyer that just didn't want the present state known should have said up front "no, don't take that test." still sketchy, but at least the other tests wouldn't have been taken and bills driven up.

how long does it take to be clear about something? "your case relies on you having it still" or "your case relies on the idea that it may be there still" or whatever the case may be. but finding out later on "no, you don't have it and so there is no case" is total bs and something that should have been warned about way ahead of time.

just makes me so

[nickel]

i don't get it... she had lyme disease and it was misdiagnosed, and she obviously should have been tested for it. why does it have bearing on a malpractice case even if the disease is not active now? because she finally got an answer?
malpractice is malpractice. her lyme disease went on for 9 months which caused her undue pain and suffering. this doc should be reprimanded at the very least by a board of his peers.

[ufcrusher]

In order for there to be a legal case, the misdiagnosis itself isnt sufficient. There has to be harm suffered. Now you are going to say that there was 9 months of pain and suffering that could have been avoided. However, I can not say with any degree of certainty how quickly lyme disease can be treated and whether or not there would be symptoms even if it was being treated. If that is the case (pain/suffering for X months even with treatment), then the mere fact that it was misdiagnosed might not matter.

Obviously, everyone here sees a situation whereby the person was misdiagnosed and in pain, even called crazy by the doctor when in reality it was a disease that could have been diagnosed and treated. However, we do not know if it presented in the normal way. I.e. - person never was in the woods, there was no spots, none of the other "normal" symptoms indicative of lyme disease. If that was the case, the doctor overlooking it might not be that odd. I know I am playing devils advocate, but lawyers do this every day to see if there was a plausible explanation for the other side which would weaken my case.

On the same note, if a client comes in and omits a whole bunch of information when telling me the case, but I am unaware of it and agree to take the case, but during the course of the investigation/discovery I find out that these omitted facts negate everything I would have to tell the client I am sorry but this is no longer possible.

[mojo]

according to the original post, there were other cases that were taken by this lawyer. so this lawyer knew to go over the symptoms and stuff, and still said there was a case.

as far as suffering...it's not just 9 months, but whole life...

the problem came because the change came after the "new evidence" came in that said that she didn't have it. of course that wasn't new knowledge. but now there is not a strong case...