Mark Geragos takes the case of Nataline Sarkisyan
By John Amato Friday Dec 21, 2007 4:59pm Here's her brother's plea for help. CIGNA heard the outcry loud and clear, but waited too long. I hope some good can come out of this tragedy...And as Steve says: Sometimes, the national healthcare scandal isn’t limited to those without insurance; sometimes it’s equally outrageous what happens to those with insurance:
Attorney Mark Geragos said he plans to ask the district attorney to press murder or manslaughter charges against Cigna HealthCare in the case. The insurer “maliciously killed her” because it did not want to bear the expense of her transplant and aftercare, Geragos said.
It’s all about risk management. Keep this in mind as you read further — because you are a risk, not a client — to your healthcare, life, auto, and homeowners insurance providers...In other words, a bean counter at Cigna made the decision that since they had already shelled out a lot of cash for the bone marrow and kidney transplant, that the cost of a liver transplant and followup care was just too high...read on
The president of the "insurance" company should pay with his life.
Its pre-meditated murder after all.
Murder for money.
I wouldn't let Geragos defend me for nothing. Reference his most recent case in the headlines:
A vote for Dennis Kucinich is the biggest F-U I can give to these insurance bullies.
Should be an interesting case.
And it's eight-to-five that the poor dumb Cigna clerk, the ex-McDonald's lettuce-wilter, who's just trying to work her way up in the world, who kept 'Just Saying No', as her Cigna 'Manual for Dealing with Expensive Procedures' told her to, will take all the heat.
At least initially
to upsetting to talk about
Any physicians from Cuba, Canada, Great Britain, France, or Germany here?
What would your countries have done?
This might be a bit too much for Geragos. He did a shitty job on the Winona Ryder shoplifting case. She was convicted. Scott Petersen was convicted. I believe they both were guilty. Mark Geragos knew they were guilty too. His lazyness came across like a slap in the face. I think this family needs a real lawyer to take on this coroporation. John Edwards would take them to the cleaners.
I am stunned that the Republicans in Congress, or even Bush for that matter, did not try to interfere as they did with Terri Schaivo. What happened to that preservation of life they go on and on about??
Oh, wait. This was about money.
Never Mind.
jack foster @ 7:
If Geragos is on the case I'm sure Cigna can relax over the holidays.
My question: Did the Sarkisyan family call him, or did he call them?
Geragos knows how to get his face all over the tv though. Larry King alone will have him on for the full hour a few times over a case like this. In that respect, this kind of case seems more suited for Geragos than defending Wynona Ryder for shoplifting, Peterson for murder, or Brent Wilkes for bribing Duke Cunningham.
UCLA Medical Center needs to be apportioned at least some of the blame for this tragic death by healthcare malfeasance.
Many hospitals and health care providers CAN and DO provide life-saving procedures even when they know they have little chance of getting paid in full.
Prestigious hospitals are capable and of using their clout apres procedure, to make sure insurance companies do the right thing.
Either UCLA Medical Center just doesn't care or -- perhaps they just lack the requisite prestige?
Certainly lack the backbone.
Geragos = ultimate ambulance chaser and publicity whore
jack foster @ 7:
Yer comparin' apples(Geragos, a criminal defense attorney) and oranges (Edwards, a civil litigator). Clarence Darrow was a great criminal defense attorney, but he lost may high profile cases(see: Scopes Monkey Trial).
But, yeah, there's gonna be some civil litigator out there who can make CIGNA pay dearly. And, if we're lucky, there will be a judge out there hearin' this case who won't be afraid to set the type of precedent that will cause major reform in our healthcare system.
good points all, it would be nice if someone of edwards caliber would take this case.
The issue though is civil litigation vs criminal. If the DA presses charges it is handled in criminal court.
Civil Court is where Geragos gets the opportunity to make the money.
They other cases where he was a defense attorney in a criminal Case of high profile clients??? just free advertising....at the expense of the client
These for-profit companies have almost a fiduciary responsibility to NOT deliver care, as their primary responsibility is to maximize profits to their shareholders. The not-for-profit, old school HMOs(like Kaiser, Group Health...) aren't perfect. But they don't have this conflict of interest.
cf @ 11:
Gee, imagine if doctors just treated the sick without having any reason to think about how they were gonna get paid.
Oh wait, that's socialized medicine.
Geragos is taking a pretty good and cynical bet here that CIGNA will settle out of court for a good amount of money because they don't want this in the news. No health insurance company wants the public to know the depths they have sunken to deny benefits to people or how they reward their employees who excel at this. I don't admire him in the least and think he's an ambulance chaser looking for the easy payoff...
Andy K. My point, exactly. The oranges and apples fit perfectly here. I do expect to see a number of lawyers for the plaintifs on this one.
The chances of a liver transplant actually saving this girls life were low to the point of non-existant. It was ultimately the doctors at UCLA who decided not to do the procedure. This country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures on everyone who wants or may need one while so many dont even get basic preventative health care.
We need to fix our system so that our health care money goes toward medical care and not to insurance company shareholders and hospital bureaucrats. Then doctors will be able to make reasonable decisions.
wagonjak @ 17:
I really hope the family flat out refuses to settle for any amount of money. I believe their daughter's death could very well become the triggering event that creates the wave that leads to true healthcare reform in this country if they take this all the way.
porcupine @ 19:
Yep it was a lost cause. How many dollars do you have to throw at a lost cause, in futility, to prove you are human?
That been said and the being the case I still hate health insurance companies. They are parasites on our society and economy.
Dear Porcupine,
How "outrageously expensive" is any life?
Rub R. D'Key @ 22:
Outrageously expensive is if it deprives us of the resources to give basic childhood vaccines or prenatal care to thousands of needy citizens. We simply cannot afford to provide all things to all patients under our current system.
Well, how far back does this denial of a liver transplant go? Was she denied when it was still a viable option and she could have lived?
It's really sad because essentially buying insurance is like gambling...you are betting your going to get sick or have an accident that you will need coverage for, you insurance company is betting that you will not get sick and they will simply get paid for doing nothing. and if you live your whole life without having any serious problem that needs your insurance to pay out for what you have paid in you do not get any money back at the end of it all, you simply loose your bet. but if you do get sick then the insurance company has an escape clause that will get them out of really loosing any money. I say if you don't want to loose don't bet and that goes for the business that takes the bet as well.
You guys don't get it - from a business perspective it was a fantastic move.
1) Approving the liver transplant for the girl is good PR
and
2) Approving the liver transplant LATE so she DIED is maximizing profits!
PR + maximizing profits = Good Business!
Or are you all commie pinko libs and are anti business and anti capitalism?
http://americangoy.myblogsite.com/entry26.html#body
porcupine @ 19:
Complete and utter horseshit.
porcupine @ 23:
We most certainly can afford it, and lots more.
Or are you assuming that the trillions of taxdollars spent to kill life in Iraq and elsewhere is good business?
Jon @ 24:
The point is that it should not be up to a bureaucracy to decide if you should get a potentially life saving operation, it should be the doctor and the patient. And if the insurance companies go broke because they pay out more then they take in...then they should have gotten into a different business...isn't that what the free-market is all about?
imagine the executives at cigna doing the "perp walk".
that ought to help their stock.
Please watch the movie, Sicko. It shows truth, a rare commodity
in the USA. I have a heart that is giving out. I'm old & don't expect
to live forever but if you don't mind I'll give you an example of what
is happening to me. Months ago I had a simple half hour procedure
in the hospital. The cardiologist replaced my 5yr ICD. That few hours
was $50,000. They fouled up so the blasted thing got infected. A five
day stay at Yale New Haven Hospital loading me with antibiotics did squat.
They sent me home to continue oral antibiotics (didn't work) so back to
Yale for another week after they removed the new ICD. The company,
Metronic, has been hit with a huge class action suit because of faulty
wires so my doctor found some genius from NY who lasered the wires out.
It hasn't healed yet but when it does, back to Yale I go for a new ICD
on the other side of my chest. The cost for this mistake will be enormorous.
I worry about my insurance every day. My daughter is a state DA which is
a bit of luck. I'm tired & old but she urges me to sue these incompodent fools
if I run into anymore trouble. All this & all we hear is how we have the best
healthcare in the world. Bullshit. :-(
Whats wrong with you people, all CIGNA did was maximize profits? It was a perfectly good BUSINESS decision. Are you all commie pinko libs who hate business? CIGNA agreed to pay for the transplant (good PR!) but delayed just enough so that the patient died before the operation (profit!).
Would SOMEONE kindly answer this unanswered question I asked yesterday?
Timmy_D11 @ 230:
Lollimom @ 27:
you got that right Lollimom, this country throws away more money then it would take to care for our citizens...yet somehow when it really counts we can't come up with the cash. The trouble is there is no money in saving life...there is only profit in prolonging death and that's where the drug companies come in.
Monty Python once had a skit where a doctor told a patient: "There is nothing wrong with you that an expensive operation can't prolong." and that's where we are at today. Don't you just love when life imitates art?
Dear Congress,
Medicare for all. Now. Quit stalling trying to look "serious" to David "Fred Thompson's health care plan is the greatest" Broder
Bad news, Mark Geragos is only in it for the lime lite or the $$$. He's a slimy, lying, crooked, deceitful snake oil salesman. i saw his sleazy antics first hand while following the Laci Peterson Murder.
flex @ 34:
I totally agree. I feel for the family and think Geragos is only going to add to their pain and disappointment.
"The chances of a liver transplant actually saving this girls life were low to the point of non-existant. It was ultimately the doctors at UCLA who decided not to do the procedure. This country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures on everyone who wants or may need one while so many dont even get basic preventative health care.
We need to fix our system so that our health care money goes toward medical care and not to insurance company shareholders and hospital bureaucrats. Then doctors will be able to make reasonable decisions."
At least SOMEBODY here is making sense. There are lots of otherwise healthy folks who can't get a transplant, who can't afford insurance at all (like myself), who could survive to live long productive happy lives, and who instead have to stand by and watch the resources of medical care being wasted on terminally ill people who would die ANYWAY. This woman, if I am not mistaken, had leukemia and had already had bone-marrow and kidney transplants.
Single payer and getting completely out of Iraq should be the absolutely necessary positions for anybody to be seriously considered a viable dem candidate. Unfortunately, although you will see a lot of these kind of stories on 'lefty' blogs, you will not see a co commitment outrage at the 3 moneyed dems lack of support for Single Payer. Compare h/o/e's plans to Kucinich's. Kucinich gets to the heart of the matter while the others have elaborate, and really unworkable schemes that will eventually discredit any role for gov in healthcare. If the people who get upset at these kind of stories made Single Payer a make-or-break issue, h/o/e would soon change their tunes. It is up to you.
The insurance companies are always there for you, as long as you're signing the cheque.
When it comes their turn to sign, see ya later.
Thank christ I live in Canada.
If this were to happen to my daughter of the same age...I would certainly be going to jail.
Timmy_D11 @ 31:
There are no definites in medicine only chances. A liver transplant would have given her a chance at life. They gave her a 65% chance of living with a transplant. Without one she would have definitely died as we've seen. And the insurance company knew this. They didn't care about the 65%. They cared about how much they would have to pay out. Insurance companies don't see a face they see a figure.
Timmy_D11 @ 31:
That's an absurd question. No transplant is "DEFINITELY" going to save a life. I doubt there is any medical procedure will ever "DEFINITELY" save a life.
Should people quit performing CPR or a Heimlich maneuver on people who need it because it won't DEFINITELY save their life? Why have a 911 system at all because it won't "DEFINITELY" help save a life, put out a fire or stop a crime in progress?
A CALL TO ANYONE WHO IS INSURED BY THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
If you can change providers.
To ALL COMPANIES INSURING YOUR STAFF THROUGH THESE HEARTLESS CRIMINALS.
CHANGE carriers!
jack foster @ 18:
One other thought on why Geragos is involved:
Suppose you're in the same boat as the Sarkysians. You want to put pressure on the insurance company, asap. That's probably gonna take a whole bunch of PR as well as someone with some legal standing. But the PR must come first, 'cause there isn't gonna be any lawsuit for months or years.
Who's better, right now, in publicizin' his efforts than Geragos? And so what if he isn't a civil litigator- if he doesn't have any working with him at his firm, ya gotta believe that he knows a few good ones. In any case, Geragos wouldn't be the lawyer arguin' the civil case. But, once again, he'll get the case on the news- the national news, at that- before your loved one is dead.
Just sayin'...
justabill @ 40:
The question is not absurd at all, though your answer is. The original commenter was asking what sort of a chance the transplant would give her to survive, though perhaps it was unclearly phrased with the use of the word "definitely." This is a reasonable question to ask, and another commenter cited 65 percent as the projected probability of survival.
It sucks to die, it sucks when people we love die, but going off the stick when someone asks a legitimate question (as I believe Timmy's question was) does not contribute to enlightened debate.
In this case I wish Geragos the best. If he wins, it will be a tremendous victory against the health care industry.
WIDEPART @ 41:
the solution is Single Payer!
WIDEPART @ 41:
To who, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, Aetna? You think any of them would have done anything different? Insurance companies are all the same and would have handled her case the same way. Put your money in a Health Savings Account and pray you have enough in there when you get sick. And hope you die before you retire. That's the only way to beat insurance companies.
Why is it important to save Terry Shiavo, but not Nataline Sarkisyan? Because it reinforces the "life is important, but business is more important" mantra of congressional and white house republicrites. There are lots of anti-federalized health care folks telling us if we lived in Canada, we'd die waiting for a transplant. Now it's happened here. So what is the difference? We still pay tons of money for our insurance, and Canadians don't. If I have to die waiting for an operation, I'd rather do it while saving money for my family.
Castanea @ 43:
I disagree. The word DEFINITELY was used intentionally in his post. He used all caps to stress his point. I think it was set up for a weak argument.
I have a legal question: Most health insurance policies have an arbitration clause which I'm sure CIGNA will try to invoke and her attorneys will argue doesn't apply here -- possibly because it involves denial of treatment rather than actual treatment? Some other reason? Most of the health insurance policy arbitration provisions I've seen are very broad, covering even premises liability fer pete's sake.
Anyway, I hope her/her family's attorneys are successful at keeping this out of arbitration.
Oh. I do recall hearing Geragos was trying to get the D.A. to bring charges. That, of course, would be an entirely different story.
please note that the insurance co. made an exception to cover this liver transplant only in this one case...that means that others needing the same treatment will be effed as usual--unless they can mobilize a mass of people to protest.
there is only this response because of outside pressure.
who protests for the 37 year old working class guy? forget about a homeless person.
even when ppl do protest, what do they get? what did she get?
i am so depressed.
porcupine @ 19:
Do you know this for a fact or are you just blowing this out your ass Bill Frist style in the hope that because you said it, people will believe it?
another point. drunk drivers who cause accidents that kill people are sometimes charged with murder...how can they be more guilty of murder than the persons who decided this for the ins. co.?
i'm thinking the drunk driver is not out to kill another person. in his goofy state he probably doesn't even want to hurt anyone, he just wants to go zoom. the ins. exec.? was he out of his head on booze? was his judgement impaired by drugs? i'm thinking he had all of his wits about him and had a long time to consider. it's was no snap decision that led to tragedy. it was a conscience decision that they made that they knew would mean certain death for this person...sounds like murder to me.
This isn't what I read at all. I read that the hospital -- which I assume includes the doctors -- wanted to go ahead, and that it was CIGNA that said no.
As for the odds of her survival, I haven't heard that that was a factor in CIGNA's decision. All I've heard mentioned was that the procedure is "experimental," which is not the same thing.
John Edwards comments.
“Are you telling me that we’re gonna sit at a table and negotiate with those people?” asked a visibly angered Edwards, challenging the health care companies. “We’re gonna take their power away and we’re not gonna have this kind of problem again.”
Dam I hope he wins.
Did Geragos have anything to do with producing that crappy, AM DJ hype video? If so, I'd say stay away from him. What happened to Nataline is a "serious" issue and should not be cheapened or sensationalized in any way. Straight talk without the reverb and corny vid effects would have sufficed.
Jenny'O @ 51:
Don't getdepressed, Jenny, get active. Demand that all dems support Single Payer, demand that lefty blogs make a concerted effort to make all dem candidates support Single Payer. We can all bitch and bitch and bitch but nothing will change unless All of us demand Single Payer.
yellow dog @ 52:
No it's an absolute lie. The doctors gave her a 65% chance of living with a transplant. That's a far cry from non-existant. And to say that "this country cannot afford to do outrageously expensive medical procedures" is nothing less than obscene. I'm sure yellow dog has the mindset of let them all die and let god sort it out. Why have doctors at all then. If a person comes down with a curable disease and it cost to much money, yellow dog dog says "your fucked".
Greg @ 39:
65% chance of living for 6 months. She was extremely likely to die, and very shortly, no matter what the doctors did. Most transplant centers won't do a transplant unless the patient has a 50% chance of surviving for 5 years.
IMHO, that's a tough call. How much is our society going to spend to give somebody another 6 months of life? If your answer is, like a lot of the posts here imply, "As much as we need to," I'm not sure where the money's going to come from.
Again, I've read nothing to suggest that this is what drove CIGNA's decision. (I've also read nothing to support the odds you're giving. But that's another story.)
porcupine @ 19:
you do understand that not one of your statements of fact in this case is true
the doctors requested the procedure, cigna did what they always do, deny the initial claim
this was not an experimental procedure and it shoulda been covered by the policy
Greg @ 39:
I am sorry to say, she had other problems, from what I have read. She had received a bone marrow transplant from her brother as treatment for leukemia. She had received a kidney transplant, apparently.
I am not a physician, but I'm a medical professional (my areas of expertise are in the laboratory, with special certifications in transplant & trauma services). I am certainly not rendering anything other than my own perspective, and I haven't even seen her chart. But...in my experience, patients as sick as she apparently was don't tend to get better. It looks to me like she was probably in a cascade of failure, and was quite possibly to weak for transplant surgery, which is a very traumatic procedure.
Here is my Christmas wish: I wish is we were all this outraged every day over the state of health care in this country without a pretty white girl having to be tied to the railroad tracks.
Danno @ 59:
Iraq.
I sure wish some of you took the colossal costs of Iraq as seriously as you take the much smaller costs of healthcare. You work in the insurance industry, don't you?
capnmike @ 36:
first off, she was a 17 year old girl....not a woman
secondly, she was in need of the liver transplant as a result of complications from the bone marrow transplant
thirdly, you are a heartless prick who has missed the entire point of what occured
insurance companies should not be the deciders as to what procedures are neccessary or beneficial....that should be left to the physician and patient
so fuck you and your me, me, me attitude
First of all, no one except the treating physicians knows the patients history. You can't make judgments based on news reports, but some facts are known:
This woman had leukemia and had recently had a bone marrow transplant (a fact reported in news reports). It sounds like she was suffering from graft v. host disease (I am speculating about this based on news reports). The transplant surgeon was quoted as saying she had a 65% chance 6 month survival rate JUST FROM THE TRANSPLANT. She was also in a "vegetative state" when the liver was available. A transplant surgeon is really not the person to decide if their patient should receive an organ, these decisions are made at a higher level by protocols based on the region of the country the patient is located and the circumstances of the donor.
The way this story is being presented on this blog is biased (which is ok), but also misleading and sensationalized (not ok).
jack foster @ 7:
Yep, probably a correct assessment. Also the reason I will never vote for him.
--Blue Girl @ 62:
That last comment was disgusting. You believe that all the outrage here is over a pretty white girl? NO! This happens everyday. The outrage is that this happens every day and not who she was.
Greg @ 58:
Please read this whole thing verrrry carefully. Yellow dog - me - is challenging porcupine's veracity. He, not me, is the one that would let Ms Sarkisian die to save Cigna a couple of bucks. I think Cigna is symptomatic of all that is wrong with our current system of access to health care.
Please make sure your brain is in gear before putting your mouth (or keyboard) in motion.
some dude named steevo @ 65:
Wait Steve, in one sentence you said we can't make judgments based on news reports then in the next you are making judgments based on news reports. Make up your mind. Do we or do we not make judgments based on news reports? Your selective judgments are ambiguous.
These are fantastic threads.
The right wingers are showing their stupidity and the health care insurers are being shown for what they are.
Thanks to C & L.
I fought a similar fight in getting my daughter a cochlear implant several years back. Not life and death though, only so she could hear.
Greg @ 69:
I see your point, but I was explaining this in order to make it perfectly clear that I was speculating. I also have a basis for my judgment based my education as a physician (which I didn't make clear). I was complaining that other people are making judgments on speculation without being open and honest with their arguments or any requisite knowledge to make them.
Her liver went bad as a side-effect of leukemia treatment. According to some of the reports I read the anti-rejection medicine would have surely suppressed the immune system making cancer treatment problematic. Long term survival was unlikely.
Of course the doctors wanted to do the transplant. I'm an engineer and I want to do an engineering project. No matter how heartless it may seem, at some point we have to make a dollars and cents decision on how much medicine we can afford, whether we have private insurance or are all on Medicare. Giving this poor girl a transplant with no real likelihood of success - and others like her - is going to substantially increase my medical premiums. Sorry, I'm not for that. It sounds like Cigna made the right decision in this case. I do wish there was somebody other than the insurance company who is incented to let her die who was in charge of making that decision.
This is a nasty case all around, but let's separate out what went wrong in this situation. CIGNA said no, because it was experimental. If they said no because she had a 65% chance of survival within 6 months, less than 50% for 5 years, and would have to go off the leukemia drugs to take the transplant drugs, it would be a cruel decision, but one people could stomach. It makes sense logically, but not emotionally.
Would single payer or universal health care have given her the transplant? I'm not sure that would happen either. She would be in that marginal "is this a good use for a liver" category. The docs wanted to do it, and they had a liver. Great. But if they said no, it'd made sense too.
We, as a country, need universal health care. This, however, should not be the poster case for it. There shouldn't be murder charges, for they made a tough decision, and on shaky grounds, but that in itself does not mean it's murder. Let's separate the anger and remorse one feels for the tragic death of a 17 year girl, from the needed logic and rhetoric for a debate on health care. This is tragic and disgusting, but universal health care would have probably had the same outcome.
porcupine @ 19:
--------------------------------------
it had almost no chance of success the longer they waited.
you have to have a functioning liver. once it fails it must be replaced very very soon...delay is certain death.
yellow dog @ 68:
You have to realize that this just isn't an economic decision. Livers are in short supply and when one is available it must go to the most appropriate patient. The transplant team has a vested interest in getting the liver to their patient. People die waiting for a liver on a daily basis. There is probably a patient who is alive today because they got that liver which this team had to pass on.
Transplant protocols are one of the most intense areas of debate in medical ethics.
That last comment was disgusting. You believe that all the outrage here is over a pretty white girl? NO! This happens everyday. The outrage is that this happens every day and not who she was.
I know full well it happens every day. I spend every day pissed off about it. If this level of outrage was pervasive, and not something that occurs in bursts, my trips to the statehouse to lobby for health care access might do more good.
That was the point I was trying to make.
Actually I believe that was Michael Moore who said that... . no? Wasn't there just a movie or something by him that said something or other about this issue?
some dude named steevo @ 71:
No, you contradicted yourself. You asked people not to pass judgment based on what we've seen on television then you went on to do it yourself. A physicians education? What your you on the other post? I was a 7 year veteran with 2 tours in Iraq. I think in this one I will be an........Engineer, not the ones the drive trains, the smart ones.
yellow dog @ 68:
You need to read my post a little more carefully. I was sticking up for you and attacking yellow dog. His post was the lie, not yours. My mouth and keyboard are just fine. You can apologize at any time.
Perhaps I posed the question wrong. What I meant was - was the need for a kidney the only obstacle between a complete recovery and dying?
If a person is in a vegetative state, are they not dead already? (I know 95% of the people here thought so when it came to Terri Schiavo)
And how plentiful are spare livers of her blood type? If the likelihood of her recovering with a liver transplant was low and there aren't that many livers to go around, should it not be given to someone to whom it will make a difference.
I know my questions / statements seem incompassionate and callous, but I do believe they are things that must be considered by doctors, hospitals and insurance companies...in fairness to them.
Remember the term "rationing" of health care used by the free market advocates to describe countries with government programs? Well, this patient was rationed right into an early grave. And we don't have those kinds of programs. So much for THAT argument.
There appears to be some posters here trying to defend the actions of CIGNA. They can only be CIGNA employees because the facts that i have read cannot be defended or justified AT ALL!!!
Firstly - if the insurance policy clearly included liver transplants - then whether it would have helped Nataline or not is a mute point. If it was covered in the policy - in black and white - then CIGNA should have - no, MUST have honoured the terms of the policy PERIOD!
Secondly - although a lawsuit won't bring their daughter back - the family MUST sue the pants off CIGNA for breach of contract! The contract ie. the policy clearly laid out what was covered and what was not covered - and denying the transplant is clearly a breach of the contract PURE AND SIMPLE.
Please sue them for everything they have got - and sue the CEO as well!
Furthermore - lay criminal charges against CIGNA. Denying the transplant is premeditated murder in my books and a hefty fine and jail sentence is in order.
Thee documentary SICKO is a timely reminder about how pathetic the US health system is - and for those people who think it only affects people with no health insurance - THINK AGAIN!
Anyone with a CIGNA policy should consider switching if possible. I know they are all crap - but withdrawing your money from an evil masochistic empire is one small way to have a say in how you want a health insurance system to operate!
Morals before profits!
Fortunately for me - I cancelled my CIGNA policy ages ago - and now deal with a "fairer" one.
Here's a thought: Why not let the entity in charge of dispensing organs for transplants make the decision about who gets the next organ, not the insurance company?
How about it, righties? The insurance company is not in charge of making decisions about a limited number of organs. It's in charge of dispensing dollars to insureds who are entitled to those dollars.
bettestreep @ 82:
That certainly goes without saying.
"Normal" people (those without an agenda or a vested interest) do not write like these people write.
Here's my message to them: I hope we put you out of a job real soon.
Timmy,
If a liver transplant was not going to be successful, why was she listed in the first place and a donor found? Obviously, the medical staff felt that the transplant was indicated. It's not up to Cigna, or us, to decide this. That's just Bill Frist diagnosing by video. We cannot possibly know the details of Ms. Sarkisyan's condition. But the whole issue would never have come up if the medical team did not believe she would benefit from a transplant in the first place.
CIGNA is based in Philly. I hope they get sued here... 'cos they are DEAD in the water if they are. The jury pool here is salivating at the prospect of putting those pr*cks out of business with a judgement that'll make their bean-counting heads spin.
Good, I would love to sit on that jewelry, I would convict them of murder, because that is precisely what they they are guilty of.
Public outrage aside, this will be a very difficult case to establish. They have to prove that the company willfully withheld money for the operation for the sake of the company's financial benefit and also that the money withheld would not have been earmarked for another person's operation (or at least that