Maxwell Hairston named in civil lawsuit for sexual assault

[WotAGuy]

Just now, DrDawkinstein said:

 

My man. Did you miss the entire first paragraph where I literally said "bear with me" and "thought exercise" etc etc????

 

In order to have the philosophical discussion @SoCal Deek was looking for, you MUST make an assumption of judgement one way or the other. Otherwise, sure, just sit back with the rest of you folks "waiting for more information". But a heads up to that as well, we'll never know more information. This entire thing is he said/she said. 

Perhaps these “conceptual” and “philosophical” discussions you and Deek are looking for will play better on PPP. That crowd loves that shlt. 

[DrDawkinstein]

Just now, WotAGuy said:

Perhaps these “conceptual” and “philosophical” discussions you and Deek are looking for will play better on PPP. That crowd loves that shlt. 

 

Oof, dont lump me in with that crowd. Point taken. I'm done. All of my previous posts in here still stand.

[SoCal Deek]

1 minute ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

My man. Did you miss the entire first paragraph where I literally said "bear with me" and "thought exercise" etc etc????

 

In order to have the philosophical discussion @SoCal Deek was looking for, you MUST make an assumption of judgement one way or the other. Otherwise, sure, just sit back with the rest of you folks "waiting for more information". But a heads up to that as well, we'll never know more information. This entire thing is he said/she said. 

Since I was mentioned, my point has always been that if I brought a civil suit against someone who brought emotional damage to me, I don’t think I’d be comfortable accepting funds acquired either through a court order or from a pre trial settlement (the latter of the two is almost surely where this is headed)….but that’s just how I live my life. I’m not making a judgement on anyone else here. 

[Mr. WEO]

11 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

Your point leaned heavily toward “just pay the girl” and move on, without a second glance. I just don’t know enough to accept that, even if you are trying to couch your position with “assumptions”. We don’t know either of these people. 

 

My Father-in-law was a dentist forever in a small town. Not long before his retirement he had the first malpractice claim of his life filed against him. It was from a poor old lady who he had been caring for for decades. He did nothing wrong, and everybody knew it. The insurance company insisted that they had never had a claim from him before, so they were just going to settle. Because it was the easiest thing to do. He never got over that.

 

I think both parties present at the time believe their version of events. I do not think either of them are “lying”, it’s just different perspectives. It’s very personal to them, and I’ll step back and hope they can both find a comfortable place to move on from. 

Insurers don’t settle cases that have zero merit.  Having been sued and having reviewed and testified as an expert witness in far more cases, an insurer will only settle if there are actual damages and they fear a jury award would be higher.  After both plaintiff and defendant experts weigh in on paper or deposition, they typically decide to settle or defend the case.  I’ve never seen a case where “nothing wrong happened” to warrant a settlement offer.  They are loathe to settle “nuisance cases”.  It’s not a good habit for them to get into for obvious reasons. 

Edited July 6 by Mr. WEO

[Augie]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Insurers don’t settle cases that have zero merit.  Having been sued and having reviewed and testified as an expert witness in far more cases, an insurer will only settle if there are actual damages and they fear a jury award would be higher.  After both plaintiff and defendant experts weigh in on paper or deposition, they typically decide to settle or defend the case.  I’ve never seen a case where “nothing wrong happened” to warrant a settlement offer.  They are loathe to settle “nuisance cases”.  It’s not a good habit for them to get into for obvious reasons. 

 

What decade did you arrive in rural SC? 

 

 

.

 

Edited July 6 by Augie

[WotAGuy]

15 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Insurers don’t settle cases that have zero merit.  Having been sued and having reviewed and testified as an expert witness in far more cases, an insurer will only settle if there are actual damages and they fear a jury award would be higher.  After both plaintiff and defendant experts weigh in on paper or deposition, they typically decide to settle or defend the case.  I’ve never seen a case where “nothing wrong happened” to warrant a settlement offer.  They are loathe to settle “nuisance cases”.  It’s not a good habit for them to get into for obvious reasons. 

Hard to believe you’ve been sued; you seem so nice to dispute someone’s personal experience about their family member. 
 

“Sorry Augie, but your father-in-law definitely put more than one tool in that old lady’s mouth. Take it from me, an expert witness.”

 

 

Edited July 6 by WotAGuy

[BananaB]

10 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

A clear, reasonable, and principled response. Very much appreciated! (Way better than the ‘cut his balls off’ response.)

No it’s not. He got him pinned as guilty without knowing what actually happened. Blames it on him being young a dumb. That pretty much it 

 

He goes on about alcohol and drugs being used but we don’t know to what extent. Doubt it was just Max . She said authorities said without force it’s hard to prove anything, so was she that wasted that she was just lying there? Sure if that was the story she would have mentioned it in her post. Authorities probably take him in right away also. Without force also means the tests she has taken at the hospital probably didn’t go in her favour. 

 

All we know is she did everything right after the fact, that doesn’t give us the details of what happened though. 

Until we know the whole story we don’t really know anything. 

[Mr. WEO]

12 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

What decade did you arrive in rural SC? 

 

 

.

 

lol was there a “small town malpractice insurer” back then?

 

anyway, the point stands.  MedMal insurers don’t like to part with their money—even in rural SC. Your father in law should have considered “going bare” in his practice environment. 
 

it’s also true that patients with no legitimate claim struggle to find attorneys to accept or go forward with their case as they would recover no fee for all the unbillable hours.  This is why they have screeners.

9 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Hard to believe you’ve been sued; you seem so nice to dispute someone’s personal experience about their family member. 

yeah that and I’m “naive about lawyers” lol 

 

Keep going, you’re doing just fine!

Edited July 6 by Mr. WEO

[Augie]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

lol was there a “small town malpractice insurer” back then?

 

anyway, the point stands.  MedMal insurers don’t like to part with their money—even in rural SC. Your father in law should have considered “going bare” in his practice environment. 
 

it’s also true that patients with no legitimate claim struggle to find attorneys to accept or go forward with their case as they would recover no fee for all the unreliable hours.  This is why they have screeners.

 

You never fail to meet expectations, I’ll give you that, sadly. 

[WotAGuy]

10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

yeah that and I’m “naive about lawyers” lol 

 

Keep going, you’re doing just fine!

Your lack of empathy and social awareness is lawyeresque, I’ll give that to ya. 

[DrDawkinstein]

9 minutes ago, BananaB said:

He got him pinned as guilty without knowing what actually happened. 

 

I literally *****king disclaimed this in the first ***** paragraph

[Dukestreetking]

4 hours ago, Billl said:

I’ll never understand why so many people think playing dumb is an impressive strategy in a conversation.

I get your point brother, and realize you said "conversation".

 

But, I don't know man... have you ever done a no-sh*t interrogation, esp of someone (non-English speaking), when you know he and his group are trying to kill you and your colleagues?

 

Try playing dumb, at least for a strategic moment or two. Results can be...plentiful.

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

3 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Your lack of empathy and social awareness is lawyeresque, I’ll give that to ya. 

Your empathy for perps is exemplary 

13 minutes ago, Augie said:

 

You never fail to meet expectations, I’ll give you that, sadly. 

just telling like it is.  That’s not for everyone…

[WotAGuy]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Your empathy for perps is exemplary 

 

LOL. I fancy myself a defense lawyer. Empathy is job #1. 😝

[WotAGuy]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

Since I was mentioned, my point has always been that if I brought a civil suit against someone who brought emotional damage to me, I don’t think I’d be comfortable accepting funds acquired either through a court order or from a pre trial settlement (the latter of the two is almost surely where this is headed)….but that’s just how I live my life. I’m not making a judgement on anyone else here. 

If this is what your “point has always been”, why didn’t you just say THAT, instead of making us run around conceptual, adult conversations and moral dilemmas? It sounds like you were just looking for a reason to say 1) I’m in Hawaii and 2) I wouldn’t accept money for non-monetary harm to me; I need their balls cut off.  LOL

 

 

 

Edited July 7 by WotAGuy

[Breakout Squad]

As a Puritan, I’m disgusted by this immorality. Buckle your boot straps and live a sin free life 😝

[SoCal Deek]

7 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

If this is what your “point has always been”, why didn’t you just say THAT, instead of making us run around conceptual, adult conversations and moral dilemmas? It sounds like you were just looking for a reason to say 1) I’m in Hawaii and 2) I wouldn’t accept money for non-monetary harm to me. LOL

You have to lead the kitten to the bowl of milk. You can’t just scare them off. 

[Billl]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

Insurers don’t settle cases that have zero merit.  Having been sued and having reviewed and testified as an expert witness in far more cases, an insurer will only settle if there are actual damages and they fear a jury award would be higher.  After both plaintiff and defendant experts weigh in on paper or deposition, they typically decide to settle or defend the case.  I’ve never seen a case where “nothing wrong happened” to warrant a settlement offer.  They are loathe to settle “nuisance cases”.  It’s not a good habit for them to get into for obvious reasons. 

I’ve worked in the industry my whole life and can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.  It isn’t even uncommon for an insurance company to pay certain claims simply because its cheaper than fighting it even if the other party has a flimsy case at best.

[WotAGuy]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

You have to lead the kitten to the bowl of milk. You can’t just scare them off. 

1 minute ago, Billl said:

I’ve worked in the industry my whole life and can tell you with 100% certainty that you are wrong.  It isn’t even uncommon for an insurance company to pay certain claims simply because it’s era o!  cheaper than fighting it even if the other party has a flimsy case at best.

Bravo!  I love you Billlll: Will you marry me? 

[Mike in Horseheads]

12 minutes ago, WotAGuy said:

Bravo!  I love you Billlll: Will you marry me? 

I checked the TOS, members are not allowed to marry each other. Sorry you'll need to rescind that proposal