Chapter 17 - The hospital claim
My lawyer filed a notice preserving Lily’s potential claim against Boston Mercy.
Not because Carmen failed.
Because the hospital had a duty too.
Mediation occurred before lawsuit.
Boston Mercy’s position:
Victoria’s intentional criminal conduct was unforeseeable at first.
Staff responded once pattern emerged.
Carmen intervened.
Lily suffered no lasting physical injury from the hospital episode.
Our position:
Warning signs existed earlier.
Visitor manipulated medical equipment more than once.
Lily expressed discomfort.
Security separation came too late.
Then expert nursing review.
Night one:
No clear reason to suspect abuse.
Night two:
Unexplained sedation should have triggered more robust medication reconciliation.
Night three:
Once Lily said she did not want Victoria in room, staff should have separated them immediately rather than allow reversal under caregiver pressure.
Strongest point.
Then damages.
Medical bills from extended observation.
Therapy.
Psychological harm.
No permanent physical disability.
Hospital proposed settlement:
$180,000 placed directly into Lily’s protected trust plus reimbursement of certain counseling expenses.
My lawyer thought:
Reasonable but could pursue more.
I asked Lily? She was eight. Not deciding dollar amount, but her interests central.
Court approval required for minor settlement.
Independent guardian ad litem reviewed.
Negotiated final:
$240,000 gross.
Fees/costs deducted under court approval.
Net to Lily’s trust around $185,000.
No confidentiality preventing safety reporting.
Hospital agreed to policy reforms already implemented.
No admission of intentional wrongdoing.
Did settlement make hospital guilty?
No.
Did it recognize risk and litigation cost?
Yes.
Then something uncomfortable.
My own negligence.
Could hospital argue I delegated too much?
Yes.
Could Victoria’s intentional acts reduce hospital liability?
Yes.
Settlement reflected uncertainty.
Then Commonwealth’s trust value increased modestly.
No celebratory money.
Lily did not get cash.
The point was future care and compensation.
Then Victoria’s lawyer filed motion to exclude hospital settlement from criminal trial.
Granted.
Civil settlement not proof of her guilt.
Good.
Then trial date approached.
Lily would likely testify.
She was terrified.
I wanted to stop it.
Prosecutor said:
“We can use forensic interview for some purposes, but confrontation rights may require live testimony depending rulings.”
Victoria had constitutional rights too.
May you like
I hated that.
Still true.
