I am curious to know the defense theory- what, if any, defense was offered? Why go to trial at all. Seems like it's just an argument over the cosmetic value of a testicle replacement. The replacement cost lists at $3000. A mistake was made and approx $400,000 was paid, lawyer gets~30-40%.
Would rather have trial by judge, seem less likely to be swayed by emotions. Would be great to see data on outcome by both methods. Who gets to decide judge vs jury, plaintiff or defendant?
I am curious to know the defense theory- what, if any, defense was offered? Why go to trial at all. Seems like it's just an argument over the cosmetic value of a testicle replacement. The replacement cost lists at $3000. A mistake was made and approx $400,000 was paid, lawyer gets~30-40%.
Would rather have trial by judge, seem less likely to be swayed by emotions. Would be great to see data on outcome by both methods. Who gets to decide judge vs jury, plaintiff or defendant?
im with you judge would be more likely to realise that bad outcomes can occur with the best of care.
I was more surprised about the $50k to the wife for "loss of consortium"...
right? what does that even mean.