El... Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 NPR even mocked her a bit this morning. Ouch. To me, the bit about the insurance company "making" her sue her own nephew sounds like reputation damage control. Maybe not, but that's what I'm guessing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
solascriptura Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I know that I should have christian thoughts towards this woman, but I cannot. She is acting like a complete unfeeling jerk. She has no care towards her nephew who just lost his mother. In what world or demension is this okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I would think by now we have had the internet long enough for all of us to be VERY careful about rushing to judgment. Alas, not. Once everyone decided (in a 24 hour news cycle) that this woman was evil...the truth came out. This is an insurance industry problem. This is a problem, perhaps, with the way the law is written in CT. The woman at issue and the child at issue and his family all maintain good relationships. Why should we be more upset than they are? Because we don't know the whole story. Relax people. Wait for the full news cycle before condemming people. 8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I would think by now we have had the internet long enough for all of us to be VERY careful about rushing to judgment. Alas, not. Once everyone decided (in a 24 hour news cycle) that this woman was evil...the truth came out. This is an insurance industry problem. This is a problem, perhaps, with the way the law is written in CT. The woman at issue and the child at issue and his family all maintain good relationships. Why should we be more upset than they are? Because we don't know the whole story. Relax people. Wait for the full news cycle before condemming people. People keep saying that but I don't see it. She said her attorney said that because of CT law that they had to name the boy in the suit. No where has she said that she was forced to sue him by her health insurance company. In addition, she had a nonsense claim against him/his family. His actions were not negligent as an 8yo, and the jury found correctly for the defendants. I see no justification for her actions. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 It's a weird, distasteful case, but it doesn't seem fair that the lawyers who are behind these kinds of cases never get subjected to the Internet mob.The arguments made are pretty standard. You have to show negligence based on a standard of a reasonable child of the child's age and capabilities. You have to show damages. This has either "insurance battle" or "pushy lawyer working on contingency" written all over it. Tort law. Blech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Actually it is unusual, as if her insurance company was pushing the issue they would have been party to the suit, and they would have started action sooner. Her suit was also asking for pain and suffering, which has nothing to do with a third party insurer being involved. If it's just insurance battle, it's unusual that it wasn't settled out of court. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Most homeowner's insurance cases look for some kind of negligence on the part of the homeowner. That makes them liable. In this case, it wasn't the fault of a cracked sidewalk but a child's behavior. Was the child's behavior such that it would make the homeowner liable? The jury said no. Honestly, if I broke my wrist, I would tell my health insurance that it was an accident that, while it might have happened at someone's house, was not caused by any negligence. The health insurance should pay. If it didn't, I would go up the chain and sue the health insurance co. - not the boy. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 The lawyers are speaking: Jainchill & Beckert, Connell's law firm, said her nephew's parents' insurance company offered her $1 over the fall, which occurred at their home. She had no choice but to sue to pay medical bills, they said, adding that she has had two surgeries and could face a third, her lawyers said. "From the start, this was a case ... about one thing: Getting medical bills paid by homeowner's insurance," the law firm said Wednesday in an emailed statement. "Our client was never looking for money from her nephew or his family." Peter Kochenburger, an insurance law specialist at the University of Connecticut School of Law, said state law typically requires those claiming injury to sue the individual responsible. "In Connecticut and most states, if you have a claim against someone for negligence, you sue that individual, not the insurance company," he said. http://news.yahoo.com/attorneys-law-forced-woman-sue-nephew-over-medical-160812692.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 People keep saying that but I don't see it. She said her attorney said that because of CT law that they had to name the boy in the suit. No where has she said that she was forced to sue him by her health insurance company. In addition, she had a nonsense claim against him/his family. His actions were not negligent as an 8yo, and the jury found correctly for the defendants. I see no justification for her actions. Not forced to sue by her health insurance company...but by the homeowner's insurance company who, apparently, offered her $1. Whether or not the claim was in the end successful, she had a right to sue. The jury did its job and found that there was no negligence. People sue and lose all the time. Very rarely, in my experience, is a claim found to be completely without basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 People sue and lose all the time. Very rarely, in my experience, is a claim found to be completely without basis. Well this one was found to be without basis. The child was acting in an age appropriate and socially appropriate manner. He was not jumping on an elderly person. It was an accident. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Not forced to sue by her health insurance company...but by the homeowner's insurance company who, apparently, offered her $1. Whether or not the claim was in the end successful, she had a right to sue. The jury did its job and found that there was no negligence. People sue and lose all the time. Very rarely, in my experience, is a claim found to be completely without basis. The homeowner's insurance company didn't force anything. They didn't feel their was a legitimate claim under their coverage. No one said she didn't have the right to sue. Some of us are saying you is a bit if a heel for doing so. And this claim seems to be without basis. Accident /= negligence. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ravin Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 She is a Witch. After she walked out of the courthouse, she rode on her Broom, back to her Den, or whatever the home of a Witch is called. I told my wife and DD about that article. My wife thinks that Witch is now hated by everyone in the USA. I hope so. Real witches generally have better ethics than this. 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Well this one was found to be without basis. The child was acting in an age appropriate and socially appropriate manner. He was not jumping on an elderly person. It was an accident. I'm not sure that is the case. The child was found to be not negligent, I believe. When a case is completely without legal basis, courts can impose a fine for the frivolous suit. I haven't seen anywhere that she faces any type of penalty for bringing a frivolous suit. Most people would be surprised, I believe, how many different arguments can all have a basis in the law. As a legal researcher I can find a legal basis for arguing almost anything under the sun. It is only the very rare case that has no basis at all. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 The homeowner's insurance company didn't force anything. They didn't feel their was a legitimate claim under their coverage. No one said she didn't have the right to sue. Some of us are saying you is a bit if a heel for doing so. And this claim seems to be without basis. Accident /= negligence. It is interesting to me that they offered $1. Why would they do that? In my eyes that looks like an admission of liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Okay. So basically, she didn't have health insurance, so she tried to sue to get their homeowner's insurance to cover it? What the hell? I was beginning to feel bad for "batshit crazy" but now I am moving back in that direction. This lady pisses me off. Though I can see how the boy's family would be complicit. Of course they don't want their own family to be on the street due to bad fortune. I can see how they would have accepted this tactic with no hard feelings. "Oh, auntie, no health insurance? Well, let's see if homeowners covers it." I hold them less to blame because it's hard to tell an elderly relative to go screw themselves. She should have paid her insurance. She deserves the bad press. "Oh health insurance is so expensive!" Well now you know why, fool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joker Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 Okay. So basically, she didn't have health insurance, so she tried to sue to get their homeowner's insurance to cover it? What the hell? I was beginning to feel bad for "batshit crazy" but now I am moving back in that direction. This lady pisses me off. Though I can see how the boy's family would be complicit. Of course they don't want their own family to be on the street due to bad fortune. I can see how they would have accepted this tactic with no hard feelings. "Oh, auntie, no health insurance? Well, let's see if homeowners covers it." I hold them less to blame because it's hard to tell an elderly relative to go screw themselves. She should have paid her insurance. She deserves the bad press. "Oh health insurance is so expensive!" Well now you know why, fool. Having, and paying, for your own health insurance doesn't mean much here in some instances. She could have health insurance but because she was honest in how she was injured they could have thought someone else should pay. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean in Newcastle Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I thought that health insurance was required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SKL Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I would like more facts as to why her costs were not covered by health insurance. Was it because she wasn't insured, her insurance coverage stunk, or her insurance company said the homeowner's insurance was primary? Or did they actually pay and she's now suing for whatever they didn't cover, such as copays, deductables, elective stuff, lost wages, pain and suffering? Or did her lawyer advise her it would be more lucrative to sue for insurance vs. file a health insurance claim? How much was she really out of pocket? I know we probably won't ever get some of these answers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 It is interesting to me that they offered $1. Why would they do that? In my eyes that looks like an admission of liability. $1 is the lowest offer I've seen, and I practice in an legal area with relatively small settlements. They have to offer something for consideration. The lowest settlement stip I've written was for $5, and that included waiving going after him for fraud. There's a consideration payment even on non-liability stips, though it's usually more than $1 even for nuisance value. I don't think it's unusual for insurance companies not to do the right thing. Suing for flat medical expenses may not have paid the attorney. Does CT disallow attorney fees out of medical costs? That's an issue here in some arenas. It's stupid because if the client has to sue to get medical costs rightfully paid, how is the plaintiff's attorney to get compensated? The insurance company's lawyer certainly does. Anyway, rambling on insurance law issues geberally rather than this case specifically. A hug doesn't seem negligent, but who knows. DH's nose was intentionally broken by his nephew's actions who was around 8 at the time. Thankfully our health insurance covered it without issue. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoughCollie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 No, surgery usually isn't. But I'd save words like "horrific" for injuries that leave you with one part of your body no longer attached to the rest, or things of that nature. Not a fractured wrist. Well, it kind of depends on the damage that was done to the wrist. I have a friend who fractured her wrist and it was pretty horrifying. If she is lucky, she will have 60% use of her wrist and hand when she is finally healed, and she may require more surgery. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I thought that health insurance was required. Accident happened 4 years ago, prior to the mandate. But that's a tax penalty, not a defense to an otherwise-valid liability insurance claim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 If it's just insurance battle, it's unusual that it wasn't settled out of court. I agree generally. But the insurance lawyers here had to be like JACKPOT! The jury is going to hate her! Dead mom? Are you kidding me? Plus public sentiment when this gets out to the press? That kills the value of every other case we have pending right now. The plaintiffs are all gold-digging evil aunties! Woohoo!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink and Green Mom Posted October 15, 2015 Share Posted October 15, 2015 I see the "Auntie-Christ" as she has been dubbed and the nephew appeared on the Today Show. Wonder how much $$$ the interview circuit reels in. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3272025/Jury-rejects-New-York-aunt-s-127-000-bid-sue-nephew-breaking-wrist-welcoming-EIGHTH-birthday.html Too bad we don't have a way on social media to apologize for all the nasty comments made about the Aunt. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 I see the "Auntie-Christ" as she has been dubbed and the nephew appeared on the Today Show. Wonder how much $$$ the interview circuit reels in. Or, maybe, she is trying to rehabilitate her reputation after being dubbed the "Auntie-Christ" by all and sundry on the internet. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LucyStoner Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 1. This suit had no merit because there was no way a jury would see a hug from an 8 year old as an act carrying liability. Seriously, who advised her to do this? Talk about bad karma. 2. That she didn't have insurance and that it costs so much to get your hand fixed are sad reflections on our messed up healthcare system. 3. I wouldn't minimize a hand fracture out of hand or lightly. My SIL had her hand broken in a DV situation and she's had several surgeries and still doesn't have full use of her hand. We take our hands for granted but they are ridiculously important and complex tools. The hors d'oeuvres comment sounds like a cheap shot for click bait. Don't believe everything you read people. 4. Even though this suit is without much merit and she shouldn't have proceeded with the case, she doesn't deserve to be called 1/2 of the names I have seen used in other sites nor to be harrassed. One bad turn doesn't merit another. 11 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3272025/Jury-rejects-New-York-aunt-s-127-000-bid-sue-nephew-breaking-wrist-welcoming-EIGHTH-birthday.htmlToo bad we don't have a way on social media to apologize for all the nasty comments made about the Aunt. Well, I haven't made any nasty comments, but this doesn't make it sound any better to me. To me, it sounds like an admission of attempted fraud and frivolous lawsuit. She appears to not have had health insurance and that's awful. But, using the court system to sue her nephew for negligence to try to force his parents' homeowner's insurance to pay her medical bills, when she knew it wasn't negligence, does not make me think more kindly of her. If I imagine myself in a similar situation, I really can't imagine pursuing such a course of action. If I was without health insurance and someone accidentally hurt me at their house in such a manner and my bills were that high, I don't think it would occur to me to do this. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Butter Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 But, using the court system to sue her nephew for negligence to try to force his parents' homeowner's insurance to pay her medical bills, when she knew it wasn't negligence, does not make me think more kindly of her. This is really what is unsettling to me. It wasn't negligence. Now that she lost the case, is the homeowner's insurance going to pay? I'm guessing no. Edited because forgetting to make a single word a contraction changes the whole meaning of a sentence! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoobie Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 This is really what is unsettling to me. It was negligence. Now that she lost the case, is the homeowner's insurance going to pay? I'm guessing no. No, that was part of the suit. You name the party who caused the harm and his insurance company. I believe his father hired separate counsel for the child as well. Not sure if there was some kind of conflict of interest or why the insurance attorney couldn't represent his interests sufficiently. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 Well, I haven't made any nasty comments, but this doesn't make it sound any better to me. To me, it sounds like an admission of attempted fraud and frivolous lawsuit. She appears to not have had health insurance and that's awful. But, using the court system to sue her nephew for negligence to try to force his parents' homeowner's insurance to pay her medical bills, when she knew it wasn't negligence, does not make me think more kindly of her. If I imagine myself in a similar situation, I really can't imagine pursuing such a course of action. If I was without health insurance and someone accidentally hurt me at their house in such a manner and my bills were that high, I don't think it would occur to me to do this. Attempted FRAUD? Seriously? You think an attorney put his license on the line to help this lady recoup her medical expenses?? The court has a method for dealing with frivolous lawsuits - why not leave it to the judge to make that call. She most likely did not "know it wasn't negligence." She was probably told by the lawyer - there is a "chance" of recovery. She took her chance. She lost. That is the way the system works. Imagine the outrage we could grow if we had a story in this day and age about the woman who sued McDonalds because her coffee was too hot. Oh, cue the public outrage. Except, if you saw the pictures of the horrific burns she suffered, and discovered the McDonalds had a setting for their coffee that was much, much hotter than anything considered safe in the industry you would understand the full picture. You, we, none of us have the full picture. The outrage and the name calling and the judgment is just disgusting. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cammie Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 The internet outrage machine ramps up quicker and quicker it seems. And it acts with fewer and fewer facts. These are human beings on the other side. People whose lives, reputations, friendships are being destroyed by strangers on the internet being outraged over something they literally know almost NOTHING about. Yet that doesn't stop them from calling her names, judging her actions, condemning her behavior. I really, really hope that you never do one stupid thing in your entire life. I hope you are perfect and wonderful all the time. I hope you never lose your temper, never say something you don't mean, never act in a way that you later regret. Because in this day and age, someone somewhere is bound to tweet/FB/post about it and before you know it your ENTIRE LIFE could be ruined. I thought we were all bigger than this. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heidi Posted October 16, 2015 Share Posted October 16, 2015 You, we, none of us have the full picture. The outrage and the name calling and the judgment is just disgusting. I agree. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tsuga Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 But see, here's the thing: In the example you gave, it is VERY highly likely that your medical insurance would have sued the homeowner's insurance WITHOUT YOU KNOWING (sorry, not shouting, can't italicize - on my phone) in order to recoup the expenses they paid on your behalf. It happens daily, almost automatically, and without insurance holders' knowledge. It happens all the time. All. The. Time. So even though YOU would not sue your family/best friend over an accident, your medical insurance would automatically do it, without your knowledge, in order to recoup the costs incurred from your injury. If they do it without my knowledge I'm not morally culpable. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the insurance companies are spending my money suing one another over such ridiculous claims. Awesome. Thanks insurance companies. Thanks a lot. Someone here is making morally culpable decisions. If it's not this lady then it's someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maize Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 If they do it without my knowledge I'm not morally culpable. I cannot wrap my head around the fact that the insurance companies are spending my money suing one another over such ridiculous claims. Awesome. Thanks insurance companies. Thanks a lot. Someone here is making morally culpable decisions. If it's not this lady then it's someone. In most cases I don't believe insurance companies sue; what they do is file a claim against (homeowners insurance, car insurance, etc.). There's no big lawsuit involved, this is just the way our various insurance systems interface. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luanne Posted October 18, 2015 Share Posted October 18, 2015 As usual, it is easy to see that people on here do not know the WHOLE story and are coming to conclusions without the facts. She has had to have TWO surgeries and probably will have to have a third. Her insurance company is giving her fits and not wanting to pay for the surgeries. So, she should just NOT use her hand for the rest of her life then? Try finding ALL the facts before posting stuff on here. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Yet again.... Another crappy situation that could be avoided if we had universal healthcare. But instead we will villify this woman who just wants her arm to be fixed without having to file bankruptcy. And also, another reason I think it should be illegal to give names listed in court documents. It amounts to socially ruining people's lives based on sentiment and and media sensationalism. Might as well bring back pillories in the public square. At least then, people would have to face the person they are ruining. It does not matter if it is her nephew. It does not matter if his mom is dead. No amount of age or sympathy changes that she needs her arm fixed. 2+ surgeries and limited mobility is a major thing. Yes, that's horrific. No, she shouldn't just chalk it up to being lucky enough she didn't get it chopped off or something. I'm sure it likely was an accident. So what? Accidents happen and still require fixing. Of course if it had been malicious that would add trauma, but accidents still need fixing too. I think it's nuts that she has to sue anyone to cover her medical care. I thinks it's double nuts that she is the one vilified for doing that, when there's not really any other option in this country when insurance cops out like it frequently does instead of people getting furious that anyone has to sue anyone to afford to fix their arm. And triple nuts that the media can get away with smearing anyone who files a court case in the media's effort to one up each other in sensationalism while ignoring the duty of providing real journalism to citizens. I'm way more upset about all of that than I am about her suing for the cost of her medical bills. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mimm Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 I see the "Auntie-Christ" as she has been dubbed and the nephew appeared on the Today Show. Wonder how much $$$ the interview circuit reels in. Hopefully enough to pay for her medical bills. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiof5 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 But see, here's the thing: In the example you gave, it is VERY highly likely that your medical insurance would have sued the homeowner's insurance WITHOUT YOU KNOWING (sorry, not shouting, can't italicize - on my phone) in order to recoup the expenses they paid on your behalf. It happens daily, almost automatically, and without insurance holders' knowledge. It happens all the time. All. The. Time. So even though YOU would not sue your family/best friend over an accident, your medical insurance would automatically do it, without your knowledge, in order to recoup the costs incurred from your injury. I think what Connecticut had tried to do is sorta try to get a grip on this situation by ordering that insurance companies aren't allowed to do that anymore, but only individuals. So that's why the aunt was listed as plaintiff and the nephew was listed as defendant. (And yes, it is totally legal to sue a child, even an infant.) That's just insane!!! Hope our insurance never sues anyone in our behalf. An accident is an accident, and since we pay hefty insurance plans they better cover it! Ugh! :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brehon Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 That's just insane!!! Hope our insurance never sues anyone in our behalf. An accident is an accident, and since we pay hefty insurance plans they better cover it! Ugh! :( Unfortunately, that assumes your or any insurance company wants to pay out money. If insurance companies don't feel they should have to pay (whether legitimately or not), they will go through the subrogation process. The individual policy holders have no choice in the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 As usual, it is easy to see that people on here do not know the WHOLE story and are coming to conclusions without the facts. She has had to have TWO surgeries and probably will have to have a third. Her insurance company is giving her fits and not wanting to pay for the surgeries. So, she should just NOT use her hand for the rest of her life then? Try finding ALL the facts before posting stuff on here. And if you had read the thread replies before jumping in to lecture and criticize everyone, you would have seen that this had already been addressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateReignRemix Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 That's just insane!!! Hope our insurance never sues anyone in our behalf. An accident is an accident, and since we pay hefty insurance plans they better cover it! Ugh! :( And if it is just an accident then your policy will cover you and they will not be asking for damages from another policy. Sometimes it isn't just an accident and there is negligence, in which case your company SHOULD recover the money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 A hand/wrist injury that required multiple surgeries would be horrific for: 1. a computer programmer like my husband who spends 10+ hours a day typing and maintaining thousands of lines of code. He owns his own business. 2. hand models 3. professional musicians 4. anyone whose hands build, make or maintain things for a living What is auntie's line of work? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kathryn Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 A hand/wrist injury that required multiple surgeries would be horrific for: 1. a computer programmer like my husband who spends 10+ hours a day typing and maintaining thousands of lines of code. He owns his own business. 2. hand models 3. professional musicians 4. anyone whose hands build, make or maintain things for a living What is auntie's line of work? I believe I read she's in human resources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Word Nerd Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 A hand/wrist injury that required multiple surgeries would be horrific for: 1. a computer programmer like my husband who spends 10+ hours a day typing and maintaining thousands of lines of code. He owns his own business. 2. hand models 3. professional musicians 4. anyone whose hands build, make or maintain things for a living What is auntie's line of work? A lot of jobs require people to type all day long—hardly just programmers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 A hand/wrist injury that required multiple surgeries would be horrific for: 1. a computer programmer like my husband who spends 10+ hours a day typing and maintaining thousands of lines of code. He owns his own business. 2. hand models 3. professional musicians 4. anyone whose hands build, make or maintain things for a living What is auntie's line of work? That's crap. It's horrific for ANYONE. I will agree it could be even worse for some than others, especially if it details their primary source of income, but I don't know anyone who doesn't think two functional hands is very important to their daily life. I am nothing more than a SAHM mom. Two surgeries and still not being fully functional in one hand would completely derail my daily life. If it took four YEARS to get through those surgeries and recovery and still not have full mobility? That's a heck of a lot more than some minor inconvienence. Yes, people live without use of two hands. I don't know any that thinks it's a minor thing though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momma2three Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Has anyone here ever been to the ER with an injury? They ask you when you're admitted if your accident occurred in a car, in someone else's house, in a public place, etc. And if you answer yes to any of those things, your health insurance company is going to try to recoup the costs of your treatment from someone else's auto or homeowner's insurance. This is so common that you don't even really think or know about it, but it's not like it's a hidden fact. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mamiof5 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 And if it is just an accident then your policy will cover you and they will not be asking for damages from another policy. Sometimes it isn't just an accident and there is negligence, in which case your company SHOULD recover the money. I understand if it's negligence then it's OK for the insurance company to try to recover the money, but if this is the case with this gal and her nephew... I am having a hard time comprehending how hugging your aunt could be fought as negligence? I am glad they didn't win, but the thought of knowing that they even tried just bugs me. I feel bad for the entire family to have to go through such a mess :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 Has anyone here ever been to the ER with an injury? They ask you when you're admitted if your accident occurred in a car, in someone else's house, in a public place, etc. And if you answer yes to any of those things, your health insurance company is going to try to recoup the costs of your treatment from someone else's auto or homeowner's insurance. This is so common that you don't even really think or know about it, but it's not like it's a hidden fact.The only thing I have ever been asked is if the unjury happened at work or was work related. Oh and if I suffer from domestic abuse type questions. They have never asked where or otherwise. Eta: but I also do not have insurance, so maybe that's why? Idk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HS Mom in NC Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 That's crap. It's horrific for ANYONE. I will agree it could be even worse for some than others, especially if it details their primary source of income, but I don't know anyone who doesn't think two functional hands is very important to their daily life. I am nothing more than a SAHM mom. Two surgeries and still not being fully functional in one hand would completely derail my daily life. If it took four YEARS to get through those surgeries and recovery and still not have full mobility? That's a heck of a lot more than some minor inconvienence. Yes, people live without use of two hands. I don't know any that thinks it's a minor thing though. Nonsense. The overly dramatic use of the word horrific is what I was addressing. Just because it isn't minor most certainly doesn't mean it equates to horrific. Horrific is on the extreme end and most of us don't have incomes directly dependent on both hands working at optimal capacity like the people I listed. When you can no longer support yourself and your family due to a hand injury, you can consider using a term like horrific. Especially if you also invested large amounts of resources (time, money, learning) to get the training you need with your hands. Other than that kind of scenario, you can use terms like major inconvenience and major hassle for accuracy. There are plenty of people who endure difficult surgeries and deal with major inconveniences when they lose the use of hand long term, but as anyone familiar people who don't have the use 2 hands knows, it's far form horrific. Special needs people do a great job adapting and so can most people. There are a whole lot degrees of difficulty between minor and horrific. Don't be so melodramatic. There's no need to match the sensationalistic tone of the articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy101 Posted October 19, 2015 Share Posted October 19, 2015 No one is saying they won't or can't recover and learn to manage, but no, it is not melodramatic to say that having to do without a second hand for 4+ years is a rather horrific injury. Better than having your hand cut off? Sure. Better than being dead? Sure. Does it also make getting a job, keeping a job, managing daily life regardless of job exceedingly more difficult than for someone with two hands? Dang straight. Pick a better word than horrific if you want to. I really don't care. But any synonym of inconvienence or minor is not more accurate at all. It is not at all melodramatic or whining to suggest that having to learn how to manage life one handed is a major big deal life event. No one said it was impossible. But I think it'd be rather rare for someone to be as flippant as you are being about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.