A recent case that appeared before New York Supreme Court Justice Emily Jane Goodman demonstrates the true motive, method and means behind plaintiff attorneys and lawsuits.
For background; a patient, Victoria Kremen, had a double mastectomy after an alleged misdiagnosis of breast cancer. She hired a law firm to sue the physician, but the case was dismissed because the law firm she hired apparently missed the deadline for filing within the 2.5 year statute of limitations. Then the patient sued the law firm for malpractice, in that they missed the filing date.
Originally she was awarded judgment, but lost on appeal. In that ruling, the judge stated that she had not diligently pursued her own medical malpractice claim. So the suit against the law firm was dismissed. But wait, it gets better! The law firm then counter-sued the patient, asking for $6,000 in fees, amounts billable to the case that they lost. Justice Goodman heard the case. Her ruling includes “The following illustrates why members of the public may hold cynical views of the legal profession.” She went on to categorize the case against their former client as “nonsensical and frivolous”. Thank you, Justice Goodman.
