lawsuit against Shady Grove

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is quite a story - patient requests what she deems should be a noncontroversial discount. This improbably leads to clearly incompetent lawyering up by Shady Grove. Then they tell her they were terminating her as a patient and she needs to take her already frozen eggs elsewhere.

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4799040/em-v-shady-grove-reproductive-science-center-pc/

I have a ... very different interpretation of this case. The plaintiff comes off as unstable and demanding. Shady Grove did the right thing to terminate her as a patient. Who knows what other kind of litigation/reputational risk she would have brought if she actually underwent the egg thawing and transfer.

I'm a lawyer (who on DCUM isn't) and I'm with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not really she said, they said. She taped the key calls! She was in a gray zone of partner v. known donor.

She wanted the benefit of a low-income discount but not the hassles of completing the known donor policies.

In response to that SGF unwisely lawyered up. It's ridiculous. Rather than spend 7k on a courtesy discount, they are going to spend 300k+ on federal court litigation.

what is all this "unwisely lawyered up" business? Shady Grove faces a LOT of potential liability. Once the doctors and administrators sensed that the the doctor-patient relationship was too difficult to continue, lawyering up made a lot of sense. The plaintiff made a huge stinkin' deal over trying to get a discount she wasn't entitled to (discount based on family income) while at the same time claiming the opposite status (that the prospective father would not be treated like a father, but more like a sperm donor). Can't have it both ways. People who lose it over stuff like this are bad news.

+1

[Anonymous]

Plaintiffs are commonly described as unstable by defendants who violate various laws. They "dealt" with her for years -- i.e. took her money and she was treated unsuccessfully for years without drama. But as soon as she mentioned discrimination, they terminated her as a patient.

Did they teach you what retaliation means at your law school? (1) That's illegal and that's why it remains as a core claim of the lawsuit. She'll likely win on that ground if this continues. (2) That's why what SGF did was stupid, not to mention unethical. They are well aware they are creating risks for the eggs she has stored there. (And the lawyers commenting should also know that the plaintiff would not be so dumb as to post in threads about her lawsuit on a public message board. She would have to disclose that at some point.)

[Anonymous]

I posted the original link and I also thought she was over the top regarding the discount (though not "unstable"). Even so what SG did in response was a million times more over the top. So unnecessary and a bad, bad look for them. Even I was taken aback and I've seen a lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Plaintiffs are commonly described as unstable by defendants who violate various laws. They "dealt" with her for years -- i.e. took her money and she was treated unsuccessfully for years without drama. But as soon as she mentioned discrimination, they terminated her as a patient.

Did they teach you what retaliation means at your law school? (1) That's illegal and that's why it remains as a core claim of the lawsuit. She'll likely win on that ground if this continues. (2) That's why what SGF did was stupid, not to mention unethical. They are well aware they are creating risks for the eggs she has stored there. (And the lawyers commenting should also know that the plaintiff would not be so dumb as to post in threads about her lawsuit on a public message board. She would have to disclose that at some point.)

LOL. It’s always entertaining when laymen think they understand the law.

[Anonymous]

22:15 You're not LOL'ing at a layperson. If you are a "lawyer," you should join SG's legal team. You would be welcome there clearly. They have done _so well_ this far.

As to the PP above attacking the plaintiff I really wonder about those who are so vicious in portrayals of other women. You would do well to examine yourself and why you would write something like that. What you wrote is really gross, and you should be ashamed. Are you generally misogynistic in your portrayals of other women's difficulties or do you share an interest in common with the defendants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:22:15 You're not LOL'ing at a layperson. If you are a "lawyer," you should join SG's legal team. You would be welcome there clearly. They have done _so well_ this far.

As to the PP above attacking the plaintiff I really wonder about those who are so vicious in portrayals of other women. You would do well to examine yourself and why you would write something like that. What you wrote is really gross, and you should be ashamed. Are you generally misogynistic in your portrayals of other women's difficulties or do you share an interest in common with the defendants?

Give it a rest. You clearly know nothing about the law and your posts are pathetic.

[Anonymous]

I've also reported 22:53. I hope Jeff removes the post. Shame on you for getting so personally vicious about a plaintiff in a lawsuit. You reveal more than you perhaps intend when you write such things. It's not a pretty picture. I feel sorry for people who have to deal with you in real life and not just interacting in anonymous message boards like this.

[Anonymous]

[quote Give it a rest. You clearly know nothing about the law and your posts are pathetic.


Go read another thread and share your insightful LOLs elsewhere. Calling something pathetic without being able to say anything substantive in response is the ultimate in "give it a rest" energy.

[Anonymous]

Thank you for removing the post Jeff. No reason why the thread should be deleted but it is notable that so many "lawyers" are citing their credentials but not saying anything substantive, just mocking in weird ways. It makes me suspicious.

Of course the retaliation claim in this lawsuit has legs. The key facts are not even in dispute. She taped the calls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The plaintiff in this case is a lawyer so it seems she is doing this pro se. I wouldn't do all of this over a denied discount, but there is a risk to frozen eggs or embryos when you are "terminated" as a patient and forced by SGF to transfer your eggs elsewhere, so that is a reason to be angered.

21:15 - I had mixed feelings about SG for a long time, which ended with a deep sense of hurt. Real harm was done - the kind that would make for a national story or major lawsuit.

I would never have filed a lawsuit though. It's too traumatic. And I felt I had to deal with them, in order to take care of the embryos I had remaining there.

I can't imagine what they were saying about all of this when discussing my situation. The "loss of trust" in my case (unlike in this litigation by EM) was so, so real. I didn't believe anything they said.

They made so many serious, traumatizing mistakes with me over the years. Once the statute of limitations passed for the most serious incident, they refused to discuss the underlying facts involved during their early treatment of me. I highly doubt they forgot. It's not the kind of thing that happens often. I won't get over that. It was so disrespectful.

Reading the quotes in this court opinion also makes me suspect they were unkind when evaluating and discussing my situation. That's is one of the drawbacks of litigation. The masks are off. You discover people are not who you thought they were.

I had a bad experience with them too, on very clear facts. It was unprofessional, and unpleasant to deal with. I too wouldn't file a lawsuit under the circumstances, and not worth further time or money.

I think it's an interesting lawsuit to watch. I do see retaliation there.