OT Lawyers Why Do People Hate Them 3493Motorhead Lawyer I concur entirely. We are the only (putative) First World country in the world without national health insurance, and this has worked to our decided disadvantage. We spend roughly *one...
you think this is a cite?
Of course. The victim says he was exposed to asbestos for years. His doctor says he now has symptoms X, Y, and Z. Then, an expert witness who is a doctor says he has extensively studied the issue, and concludes that symptoms X, Y, and Z are symptoms of asbestosis, a disease caused by asbestos exposure. What's the matter with this?
Well, if there is fraud involved, those cases are dealt with and the appropriate people are charged, disbarred, or otherwise penalized. As for whether the doctors and technicians are properly trained, that's an issue for cross-examination at trial.
You still don't realize that settlements are *agreed to* by the defendant, who is aware of the quanbreasty and quality of the evidence, do you? (As opposed to you, who state that suits are "frivolous" without knowing the facts or specific details of any of them).
Well, if you admit people are sick from asbestos, what should they do about it when the asbestos companies denied responsibility for years about the cause of the sickness?
If they're not impaired, and never will become sick, they won't collect a cent.
This is meaningless in a vacuum. If 20,000 people were hurt by asbestos, there's nothing wrong with this stat. How many of these cases were dismissed as frivolous? I'd guess an extremely small number, if any.
