Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I would in a heart beat. The parents are not giving her up. What do you expect me to do kidnap herStep up.
Adopt her.
What a colossally stupid law suit.
And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.What a colossally stupid law suit.
Why is it stupid?
They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.
Miller said the point of the case is not whether the Levys would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known their unborn baby would be born with Down syndrome. Rather, the case aims to hold Legacy accountable for having failed to properly process the screening test.
"These are parents who love this little girl very, very much," Miller said. "Their mission, since the beggining, was to provide for her, and that's what this is all about."
And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.What a colossally stupid law suit.
Why is it stupid?
They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.
I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.
From the OP link:Seems some things were missing from "Mr. Conservative's" account:
Miller said the point of the case is not whether the Levys would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known their unborn baby would be born with Down syndrome. Rather, the case aims to hold Legacy accountable for having failed to properly process the screening test.
"These are parents who love this little girl very, very much," Miller said. "Their mission, since the beggining, was to provide for her, and that's what this is all about."
$2.9M awarded to parents of girl in a wrongful birth suit - 12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas
The child is 4 now. Ironically, the parents have been receiving death threats from "pro-lifers."
Seems some things were missing from "Mr. Conservative's" account:
Miller said the point of the case is not whether the Levys would have terminated the pregnancy if they had known their unborn baby would be born with Down syndrome. Rather, the case aims to hold Legacy accountable for having failed to properly process the screening test.
"These are parents who love this little girl very, very much," Miller said. "Their mission, since the beggining, was to provide for her, and that's what this is all about."
$2.9M awarded to parents of girl in a wrongful birth suit - 12 News KBMT and K-JAC. News, Weather and Sports for SE Texas
The child is 4 now. Ironically, the parents have been receiving death threats from "pro-lifers."
And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.What a colossally stupid law suit.
Why is it stupid?
They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.
I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.
I do understand why they brought the suit. I also know that the parents made no attempt to mitigate their damages. I'm not sure, but I don't think any rules or statutes are specific to what actions mean mitigation. So, mitigation just means mitigation, as far as I know. And there is a requirement for mitigation.And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.Why is it stupid?
They would have aborted had they known. Now they are saddled with a lifetime of all sorts of expenses.
I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.
no one is adopting a down's child...
but that's neither here nor there... it is the negligence of the lab that the suit is being brought for.
there is no requirement as far as i know that the parents mitigate their damages by divesting themselves of the child. the money is for the child's care and even if adopted, she'd be entitled to that money.
there's also no cause of action for unlawful birth as far as i know... it's the care for which the funds would be payable assuming the defendants acted inappropriately.
The story says the child is four, so I doubt that is the kid. Dunno, though.If that's her picture in the article she's beautiful and she doesn't look to me like she has down's syndrome..
The story says the child is four, so I doubt that is the kid. Dunno, though.If that's her picture in the article she's beautiful and she doesn't look to me like she has down's syndrome..
I do understand why they brought the suit. I also know that the parents made no attempt to mitigate their damages. I'm not sure, but I don't think any rules or statutes are specific to what actions mean mitigation. So, mitigation just means mitigation, as far as I know. And there is a requirement for mitigation.And, they have the ability to relieve those damages. After four years, they have made no effort to do so - eg. adoption.
I agree that they have a suit for the botching of the test, but, IMO, when a person has the ability to mitigate damages of another's error and they do not, there is a problem. I'm pretty sure the courts think the same way.
no one is adopting a down's child...
but that's neither here nor there... it is the negligence of the lab that the suit is being brought for.
there is no requirement as far as i know that the parents mitigate their damages by divesting themselves of the child. the money is for the child's care and even if adopted, she'd be entitled to that money.
there's also no cause of action for wrongful birth as far as i know... it's the care for which the funds would be payable assuming the defendants acted inappropriately.
Yup. As you said, she is adorable, so that's a good way of generating emotions. But, I'm just speculating, so who knows?The story says the child is four, so I doubt that is the kid. Dunno, though.If that's her picture in the article she's beautiful and she doesn't look to me like she has down's syndrome..
I wonder why that particular picture is there then, don't you?
I do understand that. Was the suit brought forth in her name, then?I do understand why they brought the suit. I also know that the parents made no attempt to mitigate their damages. I'm not sure, but I don't think any rules or statutes are specific to what actions mean mitigation. So, mitigation just means mitigation, as far as I know. And there is a requirement for mitigation.no one is adopting a down's child...
but that's neither here nor there... it is the negligence of the lab that the suit is being brought for.
there is no requirement as far as i know that the parents mitigate their damages by divesting themselves of the child. the money is for the child's care and even if adopted, she'd be entitled to that money.
there's also no cause of action for wrongful birth as far as i know... it's the care for which the funds would be payable assuming the defendants acted inappropriately.
no. mitigation is required in specific instances. in this case, if you're suggesting that mitigation would require they divest themselves of the child, i can't imagine any court requiring that. in the first place, i would think it would be against public policy. In the second case, once again, the money is the child's for iher care NO MATTER WHO TAKES CARE OF HER.