Maybe they didn't want to sue - maybe they believed it was just an accident (shit happens), and without direct consequences to day-to-day life, they felt suing a hospital (and taking money & time out of system that generally helps people) is kind of an assole thing to do?
I know I would feel like that even if I got almost killed by hospital staff, but eventually recovered to full physical and mental capacity (if I ended up somehow disabled or permanently ill, then it would be another story).
Then they would choose not to sue as a matter of principle, not because they didn't not have the resources.
Not denying what you are describing as good reasons, I'm just saying that listing "a lack of resources" a reason one can't sue in the United States is false.
Fair enough. I don't much about the legal system in the US - so assuming you can get a lawyer to work for % of settlement / damages, would that shield the family from spending enormous amounts of time on the case? My impression was that lawsuits are not only a money burner, but also a huge time sink.
Taking a medical malpractice case on contingency to trial is a huge risk for a lawyer. Nearly every lawyer would be happy to hear your story, call up the insurance company, and immediately settle for a pittance. (Hint: if you've seen a "personal injury" lawyer in an ad, that's what he/she does.) Because of student loans and other expenses, many lawyers are not in a position to do anything else on contingency.
However, unlike most insurance policies, medical malpractice policies typically include the services of defense attorneys who are happy to take a case that isn't open-and-shut to court, rather than settling. Doctors make lots of money, and they are happy to spend quite a bit as a business expense to get good insurance. Therefore plaintiff's attorneys in medical malpractice have to be choosier about which cases they take. Any number of factors can mean that a patient who really did suffer needlessly is not a good risk for the lawyer. It totally does make a difference if the plaintiff or family can chip in for expenses along the way. The situation described by the thread parent, in which the additional medical expenses caused by the malpractice ended up being owed mostly to the hospital whose nurse made the error, would probably be better handled by the hospital's accounts receivable department than by the courts. (Although since the error was ascribed to a nurse we might not expect the same blue-ribbon defense that a physician would get.)
I once served on a jury who found for the defendant in a medical malpractice case.
I know I would feel like that even if I got almost killed by hospital staff, but eventually recovered to full physical and mental capacity (if I ended up somehow disabled or permanently ill, then it would be another story).