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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Shady Grove lost several of their key motions. So, yes, there is a case to be made Shady Grove acted illegally.

E.M. as a lawyer yourself you should understand that losing motions is all part of court cases. At 45? 42? if you want children with your FWB, you should be focusing on finding a clinic to take you.

And ... stupidly.

Shady Grove lost several of their key motions. So, yes, there is a case to be made Shady Grove acted illegally.

Anonymous wrote:Strange PP uses the words "emotional" or "personal" to describe a reply clarifying that the term "household" income was what led to the request for a discount. It's almost as if PP is taking this personally and is too emotional! LOL Shady Grove acted poorly. That is the only notable thing about this episode in my view.

But not illegally.

I'm by no means a member of Shady Grove's fan club, but that is just referring to ANY corporation registered in another jurisdiction i.e. - another state like Maryland.

https://dcra.dc.gov/page/registration-services-foreign-entities-non-dc-organizations-1

Wait, what? SGF is a foreign corporation? These mofos are owned by whom? Or they are just plain old tax evading??

Strange PP uses the words "emotional" or "personal" to describe a reply clarifying that the term "household" income was what led to the request for a discount. It's almost as if PP is taking this personally and is too emotional! LOL Shady Grove acted poorly. That is the only notable thing about this episode in my view.

Anonymous wrote:They DID not live together. And the discount referred to "household income."

She was in a rare category, to be sure, but that's NOT "trying to have it both ways."

The bigger issue to my mind is Shady Grove's ridiculous response.

I didn’t say they did live together. But they made a joint decision to make a child and he’s been a known donor all the time. If he wasn’t, how would Shady Grove have known about him? As the father, his income will always count whenever there is a question about receiving aid and it would certainly count for child support.

You’re clearly very emotional about this, as if it’s personal. To you. Shady Grove’s unprofessional response doesn’t change how their fee structure has been established.

They DID not live together. And the discount referred to "household income."

She was in a rare category, to be sure, but that's NOT "trying to have it both ways."

The bigger issue to my mind is Shady Grove's ridiculous response.

Anonymous wrote:If you read the court link it is pretty clear the partner was not a known donor. But they also didn't live together. That was her point.

Living together doesn’t mean the person’s finances don’t count. She’s been clear all along who was going to supply the sperm, how is that not a known donor? She wants the benefits of the known program but doesn’t want his financial info calculated. That’s not how it works. They had an agreement to make a child, from Shady Grove’s policies his income counts. If she doesn’t want his income to count then she should have gone through a sperm bank. You can’t have it both ways.

If you read the court link it is pretty clear the partner was not a known donor. But they also didn't live together. That was her point.

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.

Especially when as a long time patient who froze her eggs there, tried IUIs and countless visits, she had given SG $$$ since 2012.

Then she’s known for years about their known donor program and requirements.

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.

Especially when as a long time patient who froze her eggs there, tried IUIs and countless visits, she had given SG $$$ since 2012.