Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: puborectalis who wrote (24173)	7/15/2012 4:13:00 PM
From: i-node	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

>> they don't know whether it will be a win for them but they do know if the case has merits after running it by other doctors. A 2006 Harvard study found 1/3 totally without merit.

To: puborectalis who wrote (24173)	7/15/2012 6:15:12 PM
From: Lane3	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

they don't know whether it will be a win for them but they do know if the case has merits after running it by other doctors. That's true. All doctors can tell them is if the case has merit, not if it's a win for them. But my point was that they will take the case whether or not it has merit if they think it's a win. Whether the case has merit is only one element of whether or not it's a likely win. Trials can be won without having merit on their sides. And it can be a win for the lawyers even if they don't win the case. They might have their own agenda separate from winning the case. Ergo, "plaintiff attorneys will not take a case unless it has merit" is not an accurate statement, methinks. I don't think you can win that argument.