Quote:
Originally Posted by benjulmag
Probably the last place I would go to have something re-examined is the place that is accused of getting it wrong the first time and which stands to take a big financial hit if it can be shown they erred. This comment is not intended to single out Beckett, but is simply to make the point that in order for a re-examination to have significant meaning, it needs to be conducted by a company that has no economic stake in the outcome.
|
Saw this comment posted in another tread, and thought is was appropriate to add it to Corey's thoughts...
Having Beckett re-review the card is like consulting the doctor who committed malpractice for a second opinion. Common sense alone dictates that you take the card to someone else.
Talk about a conflict of interest. This is criminal.