Film features med-mal case

July 26, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IL reporter Rebecca Berfanger wrote this blog post.

The Indianapolis International Film Festival wrapped up its seventh series of independent local, national, and international films Sunday with screenings of award winners and audience favorites.

It was no surprise “A Little Help” won the Grand Jury Prize and Best American Spectrum Feature because of the high production quality, characters, story line, and acting, including Fort Wayne native Jenna Fischer, who plays Pam Beesly on “The Office.”

But it was also intriguing how the film portrayed Fischer’s character, Laura, and her interactions with her lawyer on a pending medical malpractice lawsuit. Her husband died of a heart arrhythmia the doctor misdiagnosed as anxiety after the husband lied to his doctor about cheating on Laura while she was in the examination room.

Early on in the film, it’s obvious that Laura isn’t in the best place in life. Her family gives her a hard time for drinking a few beers after work and smoking cigarettes. At one point her mom blames Laura for letting herself go, which is possibly the reason for her husband’s late hours in the office that Laura suspects aren’t entirely work-related. As a side note, Fischer wasn’t modified in anyway to look like she was down on her luck and basically looks like “Pam” from the office, making the “let herself go” comments from her husband and mother seem inappropriate at best, and despicable at worst.

But compared to other movies featuring widows who are also single moms, she’s not entirely down on her luck – she has what appears to be a steady job as a dental hygienist somewhere in or near her Long Island home, she has a reliable car, she seems to have a decent relationship with her young son, and her parents have offered to pay for private school tuition even though she and her son would have preferred for him to stay in public school (his new school leads to a 9/11-related plot twist that is interesting, but has nothing to do with the lawsuit).

It’s also her family’s perception of her that comes into play in the scenes with her lawyer and scenes with her sister.

Laura is at first unaware that the attorney is, in fact, a litigator when she meets with him to go over her financial paperwork after her husband dies. So when the lawyer tells her she should be OK, he means after a settlement or trial she’ll be financially OK.

Even though Laura is iffy on even pursuing a lawsuit – citing that her husband possibly lied to the doctor so as not to admit he was cheating her, which possibly led to the misdiagnosis of his heart condition as anxiety instead of arrhythmia – the lawyer and her sister insist she continue.

Her sister also at one point asks her how the lawsuit is going, even though she said she had spoken with the lawyer at a party and already knew the depositions were almost over, more than Laura knew or seemed to care to know at that point.

The lawyer does a few other ethically questionable things in the movie when it comes to how he handles the case, but I don’t want to give everything away as the film will, hopefully, receive a wider release after its run on the festival circuit. Or it will likely at least be available via Netflix or a cable movie channel at some point.

If you happened to catch this at the festival, did you have any thoughts about the film or the portrayal of the attorney character? Do you think the way this lawyer, and others, are portrayed on film as not letting their clients make their own decisions is realistic or fair?

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. Mr. Ricker, how foolish of you to think that by complying with the law you would be ok. Don't you know that Indiana is a state that welcomes monopolies, and that Indiana's legislature is the one entity in this state that believes monopolistic practices (such as those engaged in by Indiana Association of Beverage Retailers) make Indiana a "business-friendly" state? How can you not see this????

  2. Actually, and most strikingly, the ruling failed to address the central issue to the whole case: Namely, Black Knight/LPS, who was NEVER a party to the State court litigation, and who is under a 2013 consent judgment in Indiana (where it has stipulated to the forgery of loan documents, the ones specifically at issue in my case)never disclosed itself in State court or remediated the forged loan documents as was REQUIRED of them by the CJ. In essence, what the court is willfully ignoring, is that it is setting a precedent that the supplier of a defective product, one whom is under a consent judgment stipulating to such, and under obligation to remediate said defective product, can: 1.) Ignore the CJ 2.) Allow counsel to commit fraud on the state court 3.) Then try to hide behind Rooker Feldman doctrine as a bar to being held culpable in federal court. The problem here is the court is in direct conflict with its own ruling(s) in Johnson v. Pushpin Holdings & Iqbal- 780 F.3d 728, at 730 “What Johnson adds - what the defendants in this suit have failed to appreciate—is that federal courts retain jurisdiction to award damages for fraud that imposes extrajudicial injury. The Supreme Court drew that very line in Exxon Mobil ... Iqbal alleges that the defendants conducted a racketeering enterprise that predates the state court’s judgments ...but Exxon Mobil shows that the Rooker Feldman doctrine asks what injury the plaintiff asks the federal court to redress, not whether the injury is “intertwined” with something else …Because Iqbal seeks damages for activity that (he alleges) predates the state litigation and caused injury independently of it, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not block this suit. It must be reinstated.” So, as I already noted to others, I now have the chance to bring my case to SCOTUS; the ruling by Wood & Posner is flawed on numerous levels,BUT most troubling is the fact that the authors KNOW it's a flawed ruling and choose to ignore the flaws for one simple reason: The courts have decided to agree with former AG Eric Holder that national banks "Are too big to fail" and must win at any cost-even that of due process, case precedent, & the truth....Let's see if SCOTUS wants a bite at the apple.

  3. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  4. I am in NJ & just found out that there is a judgment against me in an action by Driver's Solutions LLC in IN. I was never served with any Court pleadings, etc. and the only thing that I can find out is that they were using an old Staten Island NY address for me. I have been in NJ for over 20 years and cannot get any response from Drivers Solutions in IN. They have a different lawyer now. I need to get this vacated or stopped - it is now almost double & at 18%. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.

  5. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

ADVERTISEMENT