Frivolous Lawsuits - where are they?

"Hey Sam, did you read that on the action, if the neurosurgeon operated on the wrong side of the brain of patients?"
"Yes. I wonder how a brain surgeon could have made such a simple mistake?"

When was the last time you actually read any of a "frivolous" complaint in the newspaper or on TV that was reported? Sure, there are some stupid actions, which were never made, look at the judge who sued his cleansing of thousands of dollars, since theCleaning destroyed his pants.

But really. Remember the last time heard from a frivolous medical malpractice case in New York. I have not heard of one in a long time I have, and I have in this business for over 21 years.

I know that when a doctor negligent for the provision of care and carelessness, is being sued 99 times by a 100, they feel they have done nothing wrong. However, the injured victim has a different opinion. If you have two conflicting opinions, where eachSide has its own medical experts to support their position, if a jury ultimately sides with the doctor means that that the patient's complaint was "frivolous?"

If the patient wins, it means that the doctor should have never defended the action because his defense was "frivolous?"

I personally think it's semantics, a word game. Each side can manipulate their position, to show how the other side's position was "frivolous" at the end of the case. What does this meanfor the argument for or against the way medical malpractice claims are dealt with here in New York and across the country?

This means that you need to get on the basics of why we are accepted as citizens of this state and country action seek to raise. The argument goes even back to biblical times to the Talmud (old). If someone causes harm to another, it must pay. It is so easy. The payback period covers the actual cost, the cost to replace a destroyed articleas well as the intangible costs and the suffering caused when the event occurred.

Our common law adapted to these basic fundamental rights, and gave the citizens the absolute right to compensation if a court search. This rule of law applies to all in a state in the United States. If you are a company and a competitor have your secrets, you have an absolute right to go to court and try to prove that you did wrong, and seek compensation from the offender.

If you are a companymake that T-shirt, you hired a vendor to have special t-shirts and failed to supply the vendor his contract and they lost hundreds of thousands of dollars, you have an absolute right to go to court for alleged breach of contract and try to prove that You are entitled to be compensated for your business losses.

If these companies lost their cases, for whatever reason, does that mean that they are "frivolous" cases? If they won their cases, not that the person or company thatShe had sued "frivolous" defense? You see how the semantics and the word "frivolous" has little meaning depending on who won or who lost?

The next time you read about "frivolous" claims here in New York or somewhere in our great United States of America wonders who claimed the case was frivolous? The winner or loser? Then you will have a better understanding of their agenda and why people think cases are frivolous.