The Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins verdict is a legal travest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

What? This is how our culture approaches the problem of who pays for harm -- the person at fault pays. And you generally have to sue people for that to happen. Are you really suggesting we should all just walk through life dealing with whatever befalls us, and never expect the people who are actually negligent or worse to pay? That makes no sense.

And no one "got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's." There is more to it than that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I am a hospital nurse and I agree that people are sue happy in the US. People use it as a threat all the time when they don't get what they want in the hospital. And it can be stressful for all involved on the receiving end. But--having worked in health care--I think you are naive about how hospitals handle bad or negligent health care providers. Ask most hospital nurses-they all know at least one surgeon they would never let touch a family member because they have messed up so many times. But the hospitals look the other way despite concerns being raised bc it costs them money. A lot of hospitals settle out of court. It is actually not as easy as people make it seem to sue--there needs to be evidence of harm and dereliction of duty.

OP here. If a surgeon is indeed messing up so many times that they shouldn't be practicing, then the hospital is required to fire the surgeon. Moreover, the state will investigate and take away their license if necessary. Hospitals are over-regulated as it is. If you couldn't do your job right, the state would take away your license too. That's how it works.

That's not what hospitals do, though, as that would invite a lawsuit by the physician against the hospital. So in most cases, absolutely nothing happens. If the physician is sufficiently dangerous, then the hospital will reach an agreement with the physician where they agree not to provide a negative reference to the physician's future employers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you need to better educate yourself on these issues. Payments for medical negligence cases comprise roughly 2.4 percent of all healthcare costs. Yet, preventable medical errors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease, cancer, and Covid.

When a family suffers a medical negligence event, the future costs can be huge. Why should families bear the burden of the injuries? What if a person is a paraplegic after negligence? What if a person can never work again and support their family? What if a child needs a lifetime of medical care? A simple medical board complaint won’t do anything to help victims and make up for the losses.

Medical malpractice cases make our healthcare system safer. They are the only true check on the system.

Rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums are the result of the insurance greed and other systemic issues in healthcare.

OP here. To my knowledge, hospitals have very strict protocols about preventing medical errors. For instance when nurses give medications, they need to check the 5 rights first. Right[b] patient, [b]right[b] medication, [b]right[b] time, [b]right[b] dose and [b]right[b] route. All those prevention protocols are required by law. Medical malpractice cases don't make our healthcare system safer. They make people afraid to become doctors because they are afraid of being sued.

The other thing is people sue for plenty of other ridiculus reasons. A couple of years, my sister decided the school the district wanted to place my niece was not a good school. My niece goes to a private state-funded school for autistic kids. While she didn't sue she did get an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. Who is she, a non-educator, to decide that a school still allowed to be open is not a good school?

I googled my sister's name and found a YouTube video of her in a zoom meeting hosted by a local non-profit. She told her story about getting an attorney and encourages other parents to "advocate" for their child. "Advocate" in this context means to disregard the advice of trained professionals and push for what you want until the school or district provides it. Imagine if diabetics told their doctors "well no doc, I know my body best and I'm telling you this dose of insulin is not right for me." They'd all be dead. Yet in the special needs parent world this behavior is often encouraged and praised. I also found out that federal law requires schools to pay for attorney fees for special-ed related cases if the parents win. I don't want my tax dollars to go to parents who [b]choose to hire an attorney to get what they want.

It's pretty clear you do not have a child with special needs. While I think many individuals want to try to do what is best for a child, the processes and institutional incentives for school districts are absolutely not set up to consistently lead to such outcomes. And everything errs in favor of the school district, so parents face difficult legal hurdles, including schools that pay a great deal in legal fees to hire outside counsel to fight parents at every step.

[Anonymous]

If a hospital causes that kind of trauma to a family, it should be sued. They destroyed that family and drove the mom advocating for her daughter to her death.

Nothing can repair the loss and trauma of a family after being damaged by the bureaucratic might of the medical institution.

I 100% support the family.

[Anonymous]

the fact that there are people like OP who side with a huge bureaucratic organization over a family/patient is astonishing to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I am a hospital nurse and I agree that people are sue happy in the US. People use it as a threat all the time when they don't get what they want in the hospital. And it can be stressful for all involved on the receiving end. But--having worked in health care--I think you are naive about how hospitals handle bad or negligent health care providers. Ask most hospital nurses-they all know at least one surgeon they would never let touch a family member because they have messed up so many times. But the hospitals look the other way despite concerns being raised bc it costs them money. A lot of hospitals settle out of court. It is actually not as easy as people make it seem to sue--there needs to be evidence of harm and dereliction of duty.

OP here. If a surgeon is indeed messing up so many times that they shouldn't be practicing, then the hospital is required to fire the surgeon. Moreover, the state will investigate and take away their license if necessary. Hospitals are over-regulated as it is. If you couldn't do your job right, the state would take away your license too. That's how it works.

Not true OP. You need to do a lot more research on a lot of things.

Also- the family should have received much, much more than what they did get awarded financially.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I am a hospital nurse and I agree that people are sue happy in the US. People use it as a threat all the time when they don't get what they want in the hospital. And it can be stressful for all involved on the receiving end. But--having worked in health care--I think you are naive about how hospitals handle bad or negligent health care providers. Ask most hospital nurses-they all know at least one surgeon they would never let touch a family member because they have messed up so many times. But the hospitals look the other way despite concerns being raised bc it costs them money. A lot of hospitals settle out of court. It is actually not as easy as people make it seem to sue--there needs to be evidence of harm and dereliction of duty.

OP here. If a surgeon is indeed messing up so many times that they shouldn't be practicing, then the hospital is required to fire the surgeon. Moreover, the state will investigate and take away their license if necessary. Hospitals are over-regulated as it is. If you couldn't do your job right, the state would take away your license too. That's how it works.

Medical boards very, very rarely take away licenses. I saw a general practioner once that, as part of my initial appointment to establish care, tried to convince me I had a skin condition that was caused my alien technology- little robots spread in the contrails of aircraft in collusion with the government. But he had his own "special" treatment.

Unsurprisingly, I wasn't the only one he told this to. His partner had previously told him to stop, and was very upset to learn he was still doing it. They even testified against him to the board.

What did the board to? They put his license in a probationary status for a few years, and was still allowed to practice. For a while he partnered with another doctor on probationary status for unethical prescribing of opiates. I have no idea how that other doctor avoided criminal charges, but this was before there was widespread acceptance of the opioid crisis.

Doctors are not going to take away the licenses of other doctors. And the vast majority will turn a blind eye toward other physicians' mistakes.

[Anonymous]

OP,

You are being incredibly insensitive and hurtful to the victims, and you are enabling the perpetrators.

I say this as a scientist and the spouse of a doctor. My husband knows what malpractice looks like in a hospital setting and he'd be the first to tell you that Johns Hopkins deserved to be sued. Stop focusing on the amount of money, and focus on who is responsible for the trauma this family endured.

Shame on you.

[Anonymous]

OP,

You are wrong about the medical case, and you are also wrong about your sister's educational case.

Do you struggle with social mores and communication? Are you an obsessive rule-follower? Have you been diagnosed with autism? It seems like your mental rigidity is preventing you from accepting that institutions sometimes make mistakes, and that it's up to private individuals to speak up, complain and pressure the system to obtain services or compensation for wrongs.

Your lack of understanding of life is painfully clear on this thread. You have no clue how society works, how hospitals work, how medical boards work, how school systems work, and the legal and perfectly ethical mechanisms by which individuals can seek redress. You need to mull over the things that have been explained to you for a good long while.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I am a hospital nurse and I agree that people are sue happy in the US. People use it as a threat all the time when they don't get what they want in the hospital. And it can be stressful for all involved on the receiving end. But--having worked in health care--I think you are naive about how hospitals handle bad or negligent health care providers. Ask most hospital nurses-they all know at least one surgeon they would never let touch a family member because they have messed up so many times. But the hospitals look the other way despite concerns being raised bc it costs them money. A lot of hospitals settle out of court. It is actually not as easy as people make it seem to sue--there needs to be evidence of harm and dereliction of duty.

OP here. If a surgeon is indeed messing up so many times that they shouldn't be practicing, then the hospital is required to fire the surgeon. Moreover, the state will investigate and take away their license if necessary. Hospitals are over-regulated as it is. If you couldn't do your job right, the state would take away your license too. That's how it works.

Not true OP. You need to do a lot more research on a lot of things.

Also- the family should have received much, much more than what they did get awarded financially.

In some states hospitals are required to report "adverse outcomes". But it is obvious they cover them up. My spouse sees it at her hospital regularly. And we experienced from the patient-side as well. We know the hospital realized they screwed up because, in a strange coincidence, we knew one of the physicians that they had review the case to determine their malpractice risk. But despite being told by their own expert where they screwed up, the hospital did not file an adverse outcome report with the state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:the fact that there are people like OP who side with a huge bureaucratic organization over a family/patient is astonishing to me.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I am a hospital nurse and I agree that people are sue happy in the US. People use it as a threat all the time when they don't get what they want in the hospital. And it can be stressful for all involved on the receiving end. But--having worked in health care--I think you are naive about how hospitals handle bad or negligent health care providers. Ask most hospital nurses-they all know at least one surgeon they would never let touch a family member because they have messed up so many times. But the hospitals look the other way despite concerns being raised bc it costs them money. A lot of hospitals settle out of court. It is actually not as easy as people make it seem to sue--there needs to be evidence of harm and dereliction of duty.

OP here. If a surgeon is indeed messing up so many times that they shouldn't be practicing, then the hospital is required to fire the surgeon. Moreover, the state will investigate and take away their license if necessary. Hospitals are over-regulated as it is. If you couldn't do your job right, the state would take away your license too. That's how it works.

Oh sweet summer child…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I am a hospital nurse and I agree that people are sue happy in the US. People use it as a threat all the time when they don't get what they want in the hospital. And it can be stressful for all involved on the receiving end. But--having worked in health care--I think you are naive about how hospitals handle bad or negligent health care providers. Ask most hospital nurses-they all know at least one surgeon they would never let touch a family member because they have messed up so many times. But the hospitals look the other way despite concerns being raised bc it costs them money. A lot of hospitals settle out of court. It is actually not as easy as people make it seem to sue--there needs to be evidence of harm and dereliction of duty.

OP here. If a surgeon is indeed messing up so many times that they shouldn't be practicing, then the hospital is required to fire the surgeon. Moreover, the state will investigate and take away their license if necessary. Hospitals are over-regulated as it is. If you couldn't do your job right, the state would take away your license too. That's how it works.

Oh sweet summer child…

Oh and I’m the nurse PP you replied to btw. You have a very naive view of hospitals/hospital administrators. Go look up Dr. Death or the nurse who killed a bunch of people in ICUs (Netflix special). Those are extreme cases but the admin apathy is not unusual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

Advocate is also a synonym for lawyer in the US you creepy racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OP,

You are wrong about the medical case, and you are also wrong about your sister's educational case.

Do you struggle with social mores and communication? Are you an obsessive rule-follower? Have you been diagnosed with autism? It seems like your mental rigidity is preventing you from accepting that institutions sometimes make mistakes, and that it's up to private individuals to speak up, complain and pressure the system to obtain services or compensation for wrongs.

Your lack of understanding of life is painfully clear on this thread. You have no clue how society works, how hospitals work, how medical boards work, how school systems work, and the legal and perfectly ethical mechanisms by which individuals can seek redress. You need to mull over the things that have been explained to you for a good long while.

Extremely naive and ironically rigid view of how politics and power work in the real world.