She is arguing that because she maintains a separate household her household income is hers alone. She is not "trying to cheat the system." It is a gray zone on these facts.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Is it unwise if giving her the discount set the precedent for providing discounts to others in similar situations? She has a known donor who had been trying to get her pregnant. His income should count.

He's her partner/friend with benefits. He's not a donor.

Then his income counts.

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.

Is it unwise if giving her the discount set the precedent for providing discounts to others in similar situations? She has a known donor who had been trying to get her pregnant. His income should count.

He's her partner/friend with benefits. He's not a donor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's a really weird situation because he is Dad and she isn't exactly doing it on her own.

Weird to you. It’s called non-traditional. And I say that as a completely single mom by choice who used Shady Grove.

She's not a single mom. Single mom is a sperm donor. She's having sex with this guy to make a baby and he's actively involved. She is unmarried but not single as she's been with this guy for years. She's claiming single to cheat the system.

It seems like another issue was requiring his consent on the egg thaw form which I understand her objection to given that she paid for egg freezing herself.

It could be a "courtesy" discount, recognizing a gray zone but not changing the general policy.

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.

Is it unwise if giving her the discount set the precedent for providing discounts to others in similar situations? She has a known donor who had been trying to get her pregnant. His income should count.

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.

You have to make less than $90k to qualify for Shared Help. So the plaintiff makes less than $90k but can afford litigation. I don’t get it.

But I also sort of hate Shady Grove so stick it to ‘em.

Anonymous wrote:That's a really weird situation because he is Dad and she isn't exactly doing it on her own.

Weird to you. It’s called non-traditional. And I say that as a completely single mom by choice who used Shady Grove.

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.

That's a really weird situation because he is Dad and she isn't exactly doing it on her own.

That’s a lot of he said she said arguments.

Is the policy at SG that anytime you use a known donor that the donor’s income is counted to determine eligibility for financial discounts? Or was E.M. ONLY in that situation because the FWB was somehow listed as a “partner” on her paperwork?

This all seems so . . . avoidable.

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/