I wonder if the patients will even see any of this money? I would like to know the following:
- Is this settlement NET of any monies due to the insurance companies as they of course are not obligated to pay for the hip hospitalization costs. If they have not submitted their their claims on behalf of the patients for reimbursement then what?
- Is this money NET of the monies due to the lawyers?
J and J "did good" in setting this precedent for sure. If the reports are correct, such that each patient was awarded $200K net of every other payment, I would say this was huge loss to the patients for what they had to go through.
If the settlement was $200K gross and required any balance due to insurance companies and lawyers....this was a pitiful waste of the patient's time to engage in this process and an embarrassment to the lawyers who ATTEMPTED TO litigate this case. Shame on them.
Hey, this is just my opinion. I would be interested in what others think.
Well Depuy, congratulations on what seems to be excellent lawyering on your part. Too bad those patients didn't have any better representation.
Who knows if the reports of the settlement are right. I hope they aren't for those of you who have choosen to litigate.
You know, I can't help but recall the conversation with that Judge with whom I spoke early on in my investigation. The article on the blog can be found here which he wrote:
The point he made was this and he was so right:
"One might think that all lawyers are equipped to represent people in trial. However, in the eight years that I spent as a trial judge nothing surprised me more than the wide disparity in the trial skill levels of the lawyers who appeared before me. As a lawyer, I was used to dealing with competent trial counsel on pharmaceutical cases, medical malpractice cases and various product liability cases. As I presided over increasing numbers of trials as a judge, I became aware that there often is a “mismatch” in the relative skill levels among lawyers in cases. In many cases the outcome of a trial was affected by this lack of experience, ineffective counsel or simply by the difference in skill level between counsel. My observations are not just anecdotal; I canvassed many of my civil panel trial judge colleagues across the state and they consistently relayed the same story − viable cases were lost or their values were greatly diminished due to poor trial skills or the unwillingness to try a case."
What those patients needed were great trial lawyers. What they got was far less than they deserved....a bunch of shrinking violets!
ASK your lawfirm questions before you hire them:
-How many cases they have tried to verdict in the last 3 years?
-BEWARE OF WEBSITES TOUTING “SETTLEMENTS” VERSUS “VERDICTS”
The claims of collecting millions might sound good but the truth of the matter is that every day cases are being settled for significantly less than their full value. Just as you would not call on your family doctor to do heart surgery, a litigant should not call on just any lawyer to handle their case.