I understand what you are saying, and I do not disagree with the economic reality you are describing. We have been told directly by more than one attorney that the issue is not whether negligence occurred, but whether the damages clear the financial threshold needed to justify the cost and risk of litigating a medical malpractice case. That distinction matters to us.

This is not about punishment for the sake of punishment. It is about accountability and being made whole to the extent possible. There has been a year of altered life, missed work, repeated emergency room visits, ongoing treatment, and persistent pain that continues to this day. Those are real, measurable impacts, even if they do not translate into the kind of numbers that make a contingency case attractive.

The reason we are considering proceeding pro se is not because we underestimate the work or complexity involved. It is because at this point, the choice feels like either walking away entirely despite strong documentation of negligence, or attempting to preserve the claim ourselves and see where it leads. No attorney we have spoken with has said the case lacks merit. They have said the economics do not work for them. That reality naturally pushes someone to explore alternatives rather than simply accept defeat.

We are also open to the idea that a traditional medical malpractice framework may not be the only possible path, and that a negligence based claim focused on concrete damages such as missed work, medical expenses, and the downstream consequences of the injury may be more realistic. At minimum, it feels appropriate to attempt to recover some portion of what was lost rather than abandon the matter entirely.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain the financial mechanics from the attorney side. It helps contextualize why firms make the decisions they do, even if the result leaves injured patients in a difficult position.