• The KillerFrogs

Listenbee Lawsuit Update 3/19/2018

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
For the record, she had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, required multiple skin grafts and surgeries to remove damaged tissue (including, well, yeah, that) and continued with medical treatments for 2 years following the incident. She used the settlement $ to pay for the 8-day hospital stay, all the surgeries and follow ups, and for a home health attendant after that. She was 79 at the time of the incident in 1992 and died in 2004.
 

BABYFACE

Full Member
For the record, she had 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body, required multiple skin grafts and surgeries to remove damaged tissue (including, well, yeah, that) and continued with medical treatments for 2 years following the incident. She used the settlement $ to pay for the 8-day hospital stay, all the surgeries and follow ups, and for a home health attendant after that. She was 79 at the time of the incident in 1992 and died in 2004.

Thank you.

Damn refreshing to see this from a lawyer on this board that doesn’t put a slant on things.
 

FrogCop19

Active Member
Rule of 9's:

dbcde6143d8988f0c38dd4f7916070ec.jpg


**Edit-Just realized you were commenting on Oakman skipping leg day.
That's what I get for trying to be subtle, I suppose...
 

TX_Krötenechse

Active Member
I have no interest in this argument, but stuff like this is just straight up lolz and why you can't trust anything online. Just think of how much 22% of your body is.... it would be like an entire leg (literally every millimeter) being burned plus half of your other leg.
She had third degree burns on 6% and second degree on 16%. The burns covered most of her thighs, her genitals, and her butt.
 

Froglaw

Full Member
I think you probably understood my point. There are clearly a large number of people that attempt to get rich off of frivolous law suits.

NOT TRUE.

Lawyers who take contingency cases do not file frivolous lawsuits because they pay the freight.

There are procedures in place to dispose of unmeritorious lawsuits (Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, etc.)

The law does not tolerate frivolous lawsuits. It disposes of them and sanctions accordingly.

Nobody is getting "rich off of frivolous law suits (sic)".
 

Frog-in-law1995

Active Member
NOT TRUE.

Lawyers who take contingency cases do not file frivolous lawsuits because they pay the freight.

There are procedures in place to dispose of unmeritorious lawsuits (Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, etc.)

The law does not tolerate frivolous lawsuits. It disposes of them and sanctions accordingly.

Nobody is getting "rich off of frivolous law suits (sic)".

They’re not getting rich off of them, but they’re sure as [ Finebaum ] trying to.
 

Moose Stuff

Active Member
NOT TRUE.

Lawyers who take contingency cases do not file frivolous lawsuits because they pay the freight.

There are procedures in place to dispose of unmeritorious lawsuits (Motion to Dismiss, Motion for Summary Judgment, etc.)

The law does not tolerate frivolous lawsuits. It disposes of them and sanctions accordingly.

Nobody is getting "rich off of frivolous law suits (sic)".

I’ve lost interest.
 

TCU_91

Active Member
This is the Listenbee thread right?

I'm actually impressed by the ambulance chaser defining and explaining justification or mechanics.

This thread was started about some punk looking for an easy pay day. In addition to another punk attorney looking for fame.

How about we discuss Listenbee instead of attempting to justify your profession.
 
Top