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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT