As everybody prepared for the plaintiff’s opening statement, I could see that 7 of the 12 jurors had their note pads out and were ready to take notes. Good.
There were several tables in the courtroom. The plaintiff, her daughter, and the Grinch sat at the table closest to the judge’s bench. There was a three foot gap between their table and our table. Vinny sat at the end of our table next to the plaintiffs. Louise sat next to me. The other defendant physician – the on-call medical resident taking care of the patient – sat on the other side of me. His attorneys sat next to him. A smaller table formed an “L” shape at the back of the courtroom. Hospital attorneys and a hospital representative sat on the end.
The Grinch started strong out of the gate by misstating several facts in the case. I had the charts committed to memory. I could rattle off the pages that showed he was misrepresenting things. Less than one minute into the trial and I already felt like standing up and asking him if we’re talking about the same patient.
He made statements like “the facts can only show that Dr. WhiteCoat should have called the consult sooner,” and “there was no question that the patient was suffering from this disease – blood was oozing from his abdomen.” Lying bastard.
I read up a little about trials before all this went down. According to what I had read, attorneys are not allowed to make arguments in the opening statement. They’re limited to factual statements only.
“Without immediate treatment, this disease will undoubtedly kill the patient.” Whaaat?!?! Didn’t everyone remember the juror that was excluded when he had the same type of symptoms and did just fine? How much more argumentative can you get? I kept looking over at Vinny. He just sat there taking notes. Blank stare. Poker face. No objections.
Then I looked at Louise. She had her hair in a bun and was all prim and proper in her dark blue blazer and skirt. She had a poker face as well. She intermittently took notes on a note pad with her chewed-up pen, but was apparently more interested in doodling a picture of a flower at that point.
I leaned over and asked “Are we going to do anything about this argument crap?”
She put her pen down firmly on the pad, looked back at me, put her hand over her mouth and whispered “Doc-tor … You have to leave this in our hands now. You have to trust us.”
The little voice in my head said “Yeah? Bite me. You have Starbucks breath and I hate it when people call me ‘Doc-tor.’” I kept my mouth shut.
Apparently my comments got to Louise, though, because she objected three times after that and all three objections were sustained. On the third objection, the judge told the Grinch to “knock it off.” The objections threw the Grinch off his game.
“The family thought the patient looked horrific. They knew that something was wrong even before Dr. WhiteCoat did.”
“Dr. WhiteCoat chose not to consult a surgeon, but instead asked a second-year resident to come and help him figure out what was wrong with the patient.”
“The most appropriate consultant was a surgeon, not a doctor in training. But the surgeon was one of the last people called.”
I leaned over and looked at Vinny again. He just sat there taking notes in his notebook. I was getting pissed … to the point that I could feel my face getting red. Louise stopped doodling and looked at me with the kind of stare your mother uses when she’s mad at you and she doesn’t want to say anything to embarrass herself. I stared back at her for a second, gave her a little fake smile, and sat back in my seat.
“Multiple medical experts will tell you that the standard of care required an immediate surgical consult when the patient arrived in the emergency department. When he arrived, the patient was ’salvageable.’ Because of Dr. WhiteCoat’s delays, there was no chance to save him.”
I leaned over to the codefendant physician and whispered “where is he getting this stuff?” Louise leaned over to me and whispered “Stop it.” She hesitated a second, looked me in the eye again and said “STOP… IT….”
“This was not one of those cases in which the doctors can just say ‘We’ll take care of this tomorrow.’”
“Had there been an early surgical evaluation, the patient would still be here today.”
I sat up in my chair after the plaintiff attorney said this. Finally, Vinny objected to the statement as being argumentative. The judge sustained the objection. Great. He’s awake.
“The evidence will overwhelm you in favor of the plaintiff,” the Grinch concluded. “As you listen to the evidence in this trial, ask yourself one question — why wasn’t the surgeon contacted when the patient arrived at the hospital?”
The Grinch sat down at his table. Vinny twisted his head to the side in an apparent attempt to crack his neck. Then he fumbled with some papers and stood up.
“Now … you will learn the rest of the story. I’m going to tell you all the things that the plaintiffs lawyer didn’t tell you. You will learn that the patient’s disease was an extremely rare disease … doctors may not see one case in their entire career. You will also learn that the patient was too unstable to be taken to surgery that night. You will learn that another hospital mismanaged the patient’s care by misdiagnosing his condition twice before he ever came to see Dr. WhiteCoat in the emergency room ….”
Vinny went on for about 15 minutes contradicting most of the things the Grinch said. He repeatedly referred to the notes he had taken while sitting at the desk, saying that “Mr. Grinch told you this, but the facts will show that wasn’t the case. Instead, the facts will show this.”
I liked it. I think the opening statements gave Vinny some credibility and made the Grinch look like he was trying to mislead the jury.
After opening statements were done, Vinny pulled me aside and chastised me.
“Don’t act like that, you hear me? You want the jury like you. You know they’re going to like the plaintiffs because their family member died. Sit there, smile, and look friendly. We clear?”
“Yeah … crystal.”
See previous posts in this series here.
Wait for it…
LOL…
WC – I’m addicted to this series! When I saw that part 11 was up, I made myself a fresh cup of coffee & settled in for a good read.
I’m sorry… but DaveyNC it looks like you are telling DreamingTree to wait for it while he tries in vain to squeeze out a fart. The facial expressions on your little shapey guys are just… perfect… LOL
You shouldn’t feel bad WC. Every party to the lawsuit does the same thing during opening and especially when the other side testifies. It’s usually all they can do not to jump up and down in disagreement.
I remember my first deposition about 15 years ago. A few weeks after this 2 hour ‘root canal’, I was dismissed from the case. Experts, none in my specialty, had affirmed that my care was negligent. There was never a case, only a bad outcome. Imagine the cash and emotional costs that the current tort system exacts on the medical profession? Would we physicians champion a medical treatment that harms far more people than it helps? See http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com for some rational MD ranting.
It is totally appropriate to pressure the defense attorney, even to threaten, “I am suing a lawyer after this case. If I lose it will be you. If I win, it will be the plaintiff lawyer. You decide.” These are insurance lawyers. Doctors should take nothing from them. I recommend hiring a personal lawyer to run roughshod over the defense lawyer. These laugh at civilians. They do not laugh at a legal malpractice specialist. And you got results by waking her up to her duty to you. Although their loyalties are to the insurance companies, the client is the doctor, and all their obligations are to his legal interests and rights.
Oh yeah, thats a great suggestion. People always work best when they dislike you and feel threatened.
If they do not like being threatened let them start a really vigorous, zealous advocacy practice. That includes total, all out attacks on the other lawyer, with e-discovery for improper motive. Then attack the judge, for bias, including pro-lawyer, pro-litigation bias to maintain jobs for his campaign contributors from both plaintiff and defense bars. These are at the expense of the doctor, and at the expense of the dragooned, enslaved jury.
No. The lawyer will not do that because he is an agent of the insurance company, lying, and posing as an agent of the doctor. That bad faith justifies kicking his ass, not just legal threats of litigation and legal accountability before the Disciplinary Counsel.
Just like how doctors work best with the threat of a lawsuit over their heads! You heard it here first; sue your doctor to get better service!
I am fascinated by this series. It really drives home something we lawyers often forget, which is how counterintuitive and non-user friendly the system is to people who arento involved.
I also like how WC seems pretty even-handed in his approach to the issues attendant to the trial, even though I don’t neccesarily always agree with him. I blogged about this myself, yesterday.
http://www.baltimoreinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/07/what_is_it_like_to_get_sued.html#more
Mr. Bratt: I hope that in the near future all lawyers will have the deepest understanding of what it is like to be sued. Most tort cases are weak and represent legal malpractice. The privity obstacle to a legal malpractice claim by the adverse third party is a self-dealt immunity. It is unfair, unjust, and illegal. Only the biased lawyer on the bench keeps this obstacle alive. No one else has had it for 100 years. A statute should pass to end that unlawful immunity. Torts will improve your product. Your product, the lawsuit, is intended to harm the adverse party in its normal use, anyway. So the doctrines of strict product liability should apply to it as well.
Supremacy, I went back and re-read my comment to see if I said anything that could reasonably prompt your broad-based attack on the legal profession. I didn’t. I only wrote about the case WC is blogging about.
But I pose this question. The defense can hand pick any expert it chooses to testify. Their own expert said the guy was negligent. Now, I’m not saying that he was. Where the defense’s own experts cannot agree if the defendant was negligent, how can you describe this specific case as factually weak? At a minimum that shows a real factual controversy to be resolved by the jury.
I read some of your other comments, and you seem like you have an axe to grind against the legal system and profession. I welcome reasonable debate, but your debate does not appear to be either respectful or reasonable.
And for what it’s worth, if I commit legal malpractice (in the real world, not the one you imagine) I expect to get sued. That is a cost of doing business, which is why our firm is covered by professional malpractice insurance.
You know, it’s often said that the system is counterintuitive, but I often find it only seems that way if you look at it with a feeling that you already know what the outcome of every case should be. Why people think that I don’t know, because in every facet of life there are people who look at the same thing and honestly come to different conclusions.
Consider, the goal of the system is to resolve disputes in as neutral a manner as possible. Obviously, both litigants think their take is right, so they see it all as a waste of time to reach a conclusion that was what they wanted all the time, but from a neutral perspective it makes sense. It’s exactly what you’d expect.
You file your claim alleging the basis for it. The other side answers saying no, that’s not correct, and sometimes even counterclaims saying they are owed something (I’m talking civil cases in general, not just med mal).
You then engage in a period where both sides get to learn about the other’s case, what the other side thinks, and why they think it. Sometimes that leads both sides to settle as they both get to see it from another perspective.
There is a period where both sides get to argue that there are no factual disputes, that the judge can decide based on the applicable law.
If that doesn’t resolve it, we have a jury of 12 ordinary citizens, with no skin in the game, immune from direct conflicts of interest for the most part, with some screening to eliminate obvious bias, make the call as to factual disputes. And they do it with the evidence put on by each side that they think bests supports their case, and weakens the others.
The rules of evidence are set up to ensure that the most relevant and direct evidence is presented. Do they always work, no, but any set of rules is going to have some balancing of interests which may not always favor this or that person. Can they be gamed by the unscrupulous? Sure, but again any system can.
Then, you have an appeals process where something can be reconsidered.
Are they always right? Maybe, maybe not. But if you were designing a system to arbitrate disputes, and you were trying to design it to be as neutral as possible and as responsive to our ideals of justice by the people, rather than dictated to us from on high, how could you design it any better? I’m not arguing it’s perfect, after all it involves human, but I don’t know that the design of the system is counterintuitive.
Matt, you and I agree. I was just observing that outsiders often believe it is counterintuitive.
It is funny, I don’t know the outcome of this trial (yet), but I would be willing to bet that WC and i would have no trouble sitting down in real life and having a reasonable discussion about it.
Most tort cases or most med mal cases? As a lawyer and a plaintiff (it is NOT fun being the client) I see many legit tort cases of my partner (im corporate) who’s a plaintiff’s atty. Obviously there are unscrupulous PA’s more interested in the bottom line rather than the best interest of their client. However as someone who was badly and permanently injured due to the gross negligence of a third party, what are our options?
What happened to part 10? Doesn’t seem like the link works anymore. Great series!
I figured we did on that point. Although I doubt you and he could sit and amiably discuss his trial, but if you could with anyone it would likely be him. Most people are so convinced of the rightness of their own position to even entertain the notion of another perspective is impossible for them.
It’s particularly odd how physicians are unable to look dispassionately at a case, given that they do it with respect to other aspects of the human condition all the time. Things that are gutwrenching to most people a physician can talk about reasonably and even casually.
Mr.Bratt: even with own client, it almost impossible to win a lawyer malpratice case. One must prove the standard elements of professional malpratice, then one would have the lost case. One has to win two trials. Then one must get the finances of the prior defendant and show one could have collected had one won the lost trial. After that one must overcome the litigation privilege of the lawyer, where the lawyer made a sincere tactical decision that just turned out to be wrong if sincere and the best he could at the time. Pretty neat.
Lawyer demand for civility is funny. You want to destroy lives and businesses but you request that your victims stay civil. Because the lawyer is really a land pirate with sanctimony, it is time to go beyond words to shunning. A databse of all lawyers should be compiled. Then all product and service providers refuse to serve them until they stop trying to destroy our nation.
All common reactions to an opening statement.
A question – wasn’t there a medical record indicating blood on the patient’s abdomen? If so, then how is the plaintiff’s lawyer a “lying bastard?” He wasn’t there and he didn’t make it up; he’s going off the facts presented to him.
What’s he supposed to do? He’s advocating for his client, just like your’s. Should your lawyer disregard the parts of the record and the testimony favorable to you?
If your physician sent you by ambulance from his office to rule out a testicular torsion, the paramedic stated that your last period was 2 months ago, and then I saw you in the emergency department 30 minutes later and performed an ultrasound showing no testicular torsion, could a good faith argument be made that you are a female based on those “facts”?
I had testicular torsion when i was 11. I just winced.
Is telling the difference between a man and a woman similar to whether a paramedic reported there was blood on someone’s abdomen?
That’s not a fair comparison.
Look, the guy has a medical record saying there’s blood on the abdomen. From what I can tell from your situation — which is admittedly not a whole lot, since you have for good reason kept some issues vague — it’s not inconceivable that he presented with blood on his abdomen.
It’s inconsistent with what you recall and what other records say but, again, why exactly should the plaintiff’s lawyer accept the version favorable to you? Should your lawyer accept the version favorable to the plaintiff, and frame his argument as if there was blood on the abdomen?
Really, how do you explain this record? I doubt the plaintiff or their lawyer fabricated it. Why should they presume it’s wrong?
Mr. Bratt: You harp on the defense expert that second the care of WC. How about waving your work product privilege and allowing the deposition of all your non-testifying experts? It is often the case, the plaintiff case gets blasted by twelve experts, and the lawyer reaches out to a retired has been desperate to pay the bills to say anything the lawyer wants. That is the most frequent scenario.
Excellent point. Usually, the plantiff’s witness is a quack who is paid extraordinary amounts of money to testify (for the plantiff. Defense witnesses don’t make nearly as much). It’s a shame this isn’t common knowledge to the juries who will think the two doctors are really both equal experts.
However, to be fair, excellent doctors in good standing with the community will rarely testify against other doctors unless there was very clear and gross incompetence/mismanagement.
Defense witnesses don’t make nearly as much? Where did you get that? You hire a lot of witnesses? If the jury thinks a quack and an “excellent” defense expert are equal, then the defense attorney hasn’t done his/her job. Although for the most part that’s a pretty competent bar.
Excellent doctors will not testify regardless of the malpractice or the harm to the injured patient for the most part.
Learned about it in med school while we were studying malpractice. A defense attorney was telling me she can’t afford to pay the crazy amount plantiff side can (it’s like $300/hr for defense vs. 800-1000 for plantiff). Makes sense when you think about it. If the plantiff wins, they win lots of money to cover those fees. If the defense wins, they don’t actually win money, they just don’t pay money.
“This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes
I love that quote, because from an individual’s perspective, that’s often very true. Yet from society’s point of view, justice is served by it being a court of law.
“Don’t act like that, you hear me? You want the jury like you. You know they’re going to like the plaintiffs because their family member died. Sit there, smile, and look friendly. We clear?”
That is correct. The idea that a bunch of strangers off the street, after excluding all with knowledge, can detect the truth by using their gut feelings is lawyer mythology. It is a psychotic delusion and a belief in the supernatural. It has the scientific validity of a seance or of channeling the dead.
The jury is going with the likable character in this bogus Broadway production. The lawyers run and want no change in it.
It got here at 6:55 a.m. And was pretty informative even at 11:05. I have no idea where the little faces are coming from. WC must be implanting them.
WordPress generates the faces based on the IP addresses. Keep that in mind if you ever post anonymously – you’ll always have the same monster face.
Wow. As a cynical old ER nurse who wonders why doctors order all those tests, this gives me a new perspective. It also makes me think about charting and what mine would be like if someone went over it with a fine tooth comb…
Mr. Bratt I’ll ask these two questions here and in your blog.
Sir, you are disingenuous at best, a bit delusional at worse. Let’s look at the comparison you draw between your malpractice risk and that of a physician. There have been cases, albeit rare ones, where an appellate court overturns a conviction in a criminal trial for “ineffective counsel”. This is a court stating, in no uncertain terms, that the individual’s lawyer was so awful as to be an affront to justice. Are these lawyers (the ineffective counselors) usually sued for malpractice? No, in fact that occurs very rarely. Often these attorneys work to help overturn the convictions! How is this even possible? An appellate court, a dispassionate panel of experienced jurists, states the lawyer was awful, and in fact undoes what a lower court did based on that decision, but it isn’t malpractice?!? How? Well, it turns out that lawyers get to say that their trial strategy was ineffective based on some element of limited information or limited resources they had available at the time. In short, “well I tried really hard, but it didn’t work out…” So how come that defense is not allowed in medicine?
Second, your assertion that the findings of the first expert proves that the case isn’t frivolous is bunk. All it does is prove your assertion that “professionals in any field to become accustomed to the processes and procedures we deal with every day”. Physicians know that medicine is as much an art as it is a science. Unfortunately, deciding if an action was right or wrong is like deciding if a woman is beautiful. Sure, there are obvious examples (e.g., Jessica Alba) but most women fall into a more nebulous category (i.e., in my eyes my wife is the most beautiful woman in the world, but I’ll bet not every man would agree with that assessment). The reality is that there are no absolutes. So I pose this question to you. As it is now taught in medical school that it is not a matter of if, but rather when, a physician will be sued for malpractice, and if we accept that malpractice is an error that is so egregious as to insult justice and require compensation to the injured; is the problem with medical education (i.e., we are not training physicians well enough to prevent these mistakes) or with the legal system (i.e., we have a system that fails to acknowledge the inherent risk of receiving medical care from another, fallible human being)?
I await your reply but I am sure it will be a self serving treatise from a defender and practitioner of the only true parasitic profession there is. Lawyers produce nothing, but take a piece from every transaction occurring in the U.S.; the new “high priests”.
Remember – every item in your house was transported, at some point, by a truck and every purchase you make, at some point, provides money to a lawyer.
“So how come that defense is not allowed in medicine?”
Ineffective assistance of counsel is a criminal concept. In the civil context, lawyers are sued for malpractice regularly. Just like doctors, a violation of the standard of care must be proven, and damages must be shown.
“As it is now taught in medical school that it is not a matter of if, but rather when, a physician will be sued for malpractice”
Is there any evidence that supports this claim?
” we accept that malpractice is an error that is so egregious as to insult justice and require compensation to the injured;”
That’s not the case at all. Malpractice does not have to be “egregious”. It is simply an error which falls below the standard of care AND cause damages.
“is the problem with medical education (i.e., we are not training physicians well enough to prevent these mistakes)”
Not at all. If you are speeding and run over a pedestrian accidentally, is your negligence because you weren’t trained well enough as a driver?
” Lawyers produce nothing, but take a piece from every transaction occurring in the U.S.; the new “high priests”.”
Perhaps you feel this way because you seem to not have a clear understanding of how the system works. Or what lawyers do. For example, I represent a woman who is getting divorced from a man who has mentally and at times physically abused her for some time. How am I a “high priest” or taking a piece from a transaction?
As to what my work produces, if I get her free of him, is that any less valuable than the physician who fixes her broken arm? Or if I help one of my small business customers collect from someone who owes them money, have I not added value to a transaction? What transactions do you add value to?
“Ineffective assistance of counsel is a criminal concept.” But a part of the practice of law. That is like stating that WC’s case is vastly different than any other malpractice case because it was in the ED. If the counsel was so ineffective as to be an insult to justice, how is it NOT malpractice? Easy, because as lawyers you extend each other the courtesy that a bad outcome does not equate malpractice and a misjudgement in strategy made with good intent is excusable. You will not extend those privledges to medicine.
“Is there any evidence that supports this claim?”
Yes, closed case review of each specialty reveals a rate per physician by specialty. In emergency medicine, a physician can expect to be sued every 6 years.
“It is simply an error which falls below the standard of care AND cause damages.”
But the standard of care is an artifical construct. Just as each criminal case is slightly different, so “ineffective counsel” is not defacto malpractice (despite the remedy given the injured by the court), nor should a deviation based on a clinical picture leave the physician exposed to liability. Willful and wanton injury, yep, that should be a tort, just as the lawyer who shows up to court drunk would be.
“Not at all. If you are speeding and run over a pedestrian accidentally, is your negligence because you weren’t trained well enough as a driver?”
No, speeding is a choice I made with no possible benefit to the person I struck. Additionally, I was not speeding in a good faith effort to help the pedestrian at their request.
“Perhaps you feel this way because you seem to not have a clear understanding of how the system works. Or what lawyers do. For example, I represent a woman who is getting divorced from a man who has mentally and at times physically abused her for some time. How am I a “high priest” or taking a piece from a transaction?”
Yes, you are. A judge should be able to grant that divorce without the need for an adversarial system. And if a lawyer is needed, why the need for a contingency based fee? Should I insist that a patient pay me one dollar every day they live after a repair a low-morbidity injury and five dollars a day if I save their life?
“What transactions do you add value to?”
You accuse me of not knowing law, you certainly don’t know public health. What is the burden to society of a lame or diseased member? That is the value I add. What is it that the Trial Lawyers of America (I’m sorry, they’ve renamed themselves the “Justice League” or something like that)?
matt,
How do you know that it is not the woman who is mental psycho cases and the reason for the divorce? You don’t. You just get a piece of the transaction.
“As it is now taught in medical school that it is not a matter of if, but rather when, a physician will be sued for malpractice”
Is there any evidence that supports this claim?
What would constitute evidence? A video from each medical school in the country of a professor telling the class this? Everyone believes if you are a doctor it is just a matter of time before you are sued.
Doctors just need to accept they will eventually be sued, even when they provide great care. They should quit whining.
every purchase you make, at some point, provides money to a lawyer.
i don’t see what you are getting at here. the same can be said of physicians or soldiers or janitors or secretaries. are all of them bad too?
Matt: the lawyer is a family destroyer, as you well illustrate. The lawyer destroyed the black family, and is coming after the white family. The destruction of the family results in an explosion of social pathology. Every social pathology has a lawyer profiting from it.
Rent seeking is the sole success of the lawyer criminal cult enterprise. In rent seeking the person pays and gets nothing back. It is a form of organized crime. The lawyer parasite controls the three branches of government, and there is nothing anyone can do but pay. Every lawyer destroys a minimum of $million every year left alive. The lawyer profession is the most powerful and wealthiest criminal syndicate in the world, in absolute control of the US government.
Perhaps, Fyr has no legal training. If he ever gets any, he will see that matters are 100 times worse than he thinks now.
The lawyer profession is organized as a criminal cult enterprise. It has supernatural core doctrines. In torts, the defendant must have a duty to the plaintiff. Duty comes from the foreseeability of harm. The lawyer believes rare, future accidents can be foreseen. Cuckoo.
Matt, let me have tonight’s Pick Five winning numbers. You are more likely to be correct than in foreseeing the harm of a future accident, even after spilling a gallon of Mazola oil in a supermarket aisle. The overwhelming majority of shoppers will walk around it. One is really asked to predict that a moron plaintiff won’t. This idiotic future forecasting is a false excuse to plunder the supermarket business.
Matt underwent cult indoctrination to come to believe in the psychotic doctrines taken from a church and unlawful in our secular nation. The indoctrination was so good, Matt is saying, what indoctrination?
Matt was also made to believe minds can be read. Matt was taught, twelve strangers can detect truth telling by witnesses, using gut feelings, after any juror with knowledge has been excluded. He was indoctrinated into many other psychotic lawyer beliefs.
Thn, Matt is subjected to draconian discipline with no recourse if he ever dares challenge the hierarchy of this criminal cult. He is actually twice as oppressed as the public, and does not even know it.
Frydoc, I think you’re mad over something you don’t quite understand. Let me address your complaints:
“But a part of the practice of law. That is like stating that WC’s case is vastly different than any other malpractice case because it was in the ED”
Not at all. There are different rules of procedure, discovery, and vastly more opportunities for review in criminal law.
“If the counsel was so ineffective as to be an insult to justice, how is it NOT malpractice? ”
It probably is, and people may be getting verdicts or settlements as a result. I’m not a criminal lawyer beyond the misdemeanor level, so I don’t know. Do you?
“Easy, because as lawyers you extend each other the courtesy that a bad outcome does not equate malpractice and a misjudgement in strategy made with good intent is excusable.”
That’s the same thing that happens in medicine. Physicians will rarely testify against each other, even when malpractice causes a bad outcome. As far as lawyers, most lawyers spend a lot of money pre-screening cases. For example, I once had a client come in who had a perforated bowel and a number of resulting problems arising from that. Bad outcome, right? Well, the expert paid to review it said the surgeon’s actions were within the standard of care. No case. Ask any med mal lawyer, and they will tell you they turn down hundreds of cases for every one they take. Your conclusion appears to be based solely on assumptions here.
“In emergency medicine, a physician can expect to be sued every 6 years.”
Please, cite me the study. And also, your original statement was not limited to all ED physicians. How long have you been practicing and how often have you been sued?
“nor should a deviation based on a clinical picture leave the physician exposed to liability.”
Why not? Why is it wrong to determine if that deviation fell below the standard of care? Are you arguing that medicine does not have any set standards on how one should act in a particular situation? Lawyers are subject to the standard of care as well.
“No, speeding is a choice I made with no possible benefit to the person I struck.”
OK, then what if you have a passenger in your car that needs to get somewhere, and you’re speeding and in a wreck and they get hurt? Still negligence on your part, despite the fact they might have benefited. Was it a failure of your training? No.
” A judge should be able to grant that divorce without the need for an adversarial system. And if a lawyer is needed, why the need for a contingency based fee? ”
You can’t take a contingency fee in a divorce in every state I’ve practiced in. So there goes that. And in most, if not all, states a lawyer is not necessary for a divorce. Your bigger states all have forms you can fill out for agreed divorces.
” What is it that the Trial Lawyers of America (I’m sorry, they’ve renamed themselves the “Justice League” or something like that)?”
I think it is what is it that they add, correct? Like any lobbying organization, including the ones you belong to, they work to benefit their members. But much like the AMA says it is benefiting patients, AAJ (I think that’s what they’re called now) would argue that it is benefiting the poorest among us who do not have the lobbying power to battle an insurance company or a Fortune 500 entity dollar for dollar.
Oh, and with respect to your claim about putting the lame or sick back in society, if they’re lame or sick as a result of someone else’s negligence, who do you think gets them the money to pay your bill? To pay their mortgage? To pay for their future medical care?
Do you think insurance companies for people who negligently cause harm just write checks because you ask? Particularly big ones? You’re a doctor, you deal with insurers, you know better than that. In fact, hundreds of thousands of doctors banded together, hired lawyers (presumably because they added value) and filed class actions against the major health insurers which have resulted in settlements in the hundreds of millions. Why did you do that if people don’t need lawyers to hold at fault parties responsible for what they owe, and if lawyers add no value?
Actually Matt, I do understand. In addition to my MD, I hold a Master’s Degrees in Public Health and Public Policy. Do yourself a favor and stick to law.
Here is a question for you – why are trademark cases considered complicated that they require a special court, without a jury, but medical malpractice cases have one. Simple, the lawyers can’t play to emotions if there is no jury.
BTW – you still haven’t answered the question as to how ineffective counsel isn’t legal malpractice.
Face facts, I DO understand the system. I just don’t like it. It is set up to reward lawyers like a lottery, stifle science, and leads to a huge cost burden on society from the practice of defensive medicine. I don’t expect an attorney to understand. I (and almost all physicians) have in our core a need to help people. We have spent years of time at great personal cost learning to do so. Lawyers, on the other hand, are by the normal practice of their profession, committed to sociopathy. The facts don’t matter, what matters is how they are framed, for the sole purpose of “winning” (and thus profiting).
” In addition to my MD, I hold a Master’s Degrees in Public Health and Public Policy. ”
Yet neither of those give you much background in the differences between criminal and civil law.
“Here is a question for you – why are trademark cases considered complicated that they require a special court, without a jury, but medical malpractice cases have one. Simple, the lawyers can’t play to emotions if there is no jury.”
Well, apparently they didn’t cover the Constitution in any of your coursework. Medical malpractice is a common law claim which falls under the 7th Amendment. It is a jury trial because of that, not because of any emotional swaying. Patent law, like bankruptcy, is a wholly statutory scheme. You’d have to look at the legislative record to know the reasoning behind denying a jury trial on patent disputes.
Not to mention that the “emotional” argument isn’t really supported by any evidence either, given the rate physicians win at trial. And it’s a pretty arrogant assumption that juries are made up of simpletons who can only respond to the emotional appeals of the plaintiff’s lawyer while the defense sits there like a potted plant.
“You still haven’t answered the question as to how ineffective counsel isn’t legal malpractice.”
I said it may well be. I’d be surprised if it wasn’t. I don’t know of any criminals who have pursued civil malpractice claims based on a finding of ineffective assistance and been denied recovery. Do you?
“Face facts, I DO understand the system.”
If you say so. Although the “why are they jury trials” question is a pretty basic one.
” It is set up to reward lawyers like a lottery, stifle science, and leads to a huge cost burden on society from the practice of defensive medicine. ”
You have an odd definition of lottery. And given that our legal system protects things like patents, contractual rights, etc. it would seem that would benefit science. Given our economy is the most dynamic in the world by almost any measure, it would seem the facts belie your claims. As for the alleged cost of “defensive medicine” (which physicians can’t even agree on), at its highest it’s less than 10% of all healthcare expenditures.
“Lawyers, on the other hand, are by the normal practice of their profession, committed to sociopathy.”
Clearly that’s true. After all, you say so. Let me introduce you to my friend Supremacy Claus. Be careful, I’ve also destroyed the black family and am on my way to destroying white families as well. So I’m not to be trifled with.
The lawyer is in failure in every self-stated goal of every law subject. He is a success at only one goal, that goes unstated. Rent Seeking.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking
This is a polite term for armed robbery. You pay, you get nothing back, except you are grateful armed thugs did not pistol whip you.
Neither trademark nor patent law has a special court. They are tried in the federal district courts, along with all kinds of claims, including medical malpractice and slip and fall cases (assuming that the latter meet diversity requirements for federal jurisdiction). Both are commonly tried to juries. There is an administrative body that hears certain types of cases for both (generally about acquisition but not infringement), but its decisions are appealable to district court.
The rule of law is an essential utility product. Turn it off and you are in Fallujah, spending all your time on personal security. Imagine the electicity on two hours a day, with appliance destroying surges in rich areas, On 2 minutes a day in poor areas. You have an idea of the utter failure of the lawyer.
Who decides when your case goes before a judge, and when it goes before a jury?
Why do we have a supreme court? Should it not be a supreme jury? Every case should have a new set or jurors, should it not?
When people get divorced why is there no jury?
What about bankruptcy court – isn’t there just a judge?
I’m confused.
“Why do we have a supreme court? Should it not be a supreme jury? Every case should have a new set or jurors, should it not?”
– You can appeal a case only on matters of law, not of fact. Basically, if a jury says that XYZ happened, and everything in the case was done according to the law, there is nothing to appeal. Higher courts exist to review the decisions made by the judge.
When people get divorced why is there no jury?
– A divorce is just deciding how to divide assets. Taking a very high-level view, a child is just an asset, as are visitation rights. Support payments are the same – it’s a transfer of assets over a period of time. Rarely are there decisions of fact that need to be made, so no need for a jury.
What about bankruptcy court – isn’t there just a judge?
– Similar to above. There’s usually more though – the court appoints someone to oversee things for them.
Ultimately, lawyers are needed for one simple reason – people can’t be trusted. Verbal contracts are great, until the someone says there wasn’t one. Broad simple contracts are great, until someone decides that they don’t like it. People (in general) are mean, hostile and out to get you. Individual persons are pretty cool, but overall – humanity just doesn’t have any (humanity)!
– Ravensfire
Matt: Is the husband paying for your legal fees so you may enrich yourself destroying his family?
Wow Matt,
Are you an arrogant one. And I do so love how keep refusing to answer a question and instead choose to attack my credibility.
“Yet neither of those give you much background in the differences between criminal and civil law.”
Listen closely, I’ll type slowly. I understand that “ineffective counsel” is a criminal court standard. But that standard basically means that the defendant was denied a fair trial because their lawyer did an extremely (it is a pretty high bar) poor job at defending them. This could result from miscues of trial strategy, information that was withheld, or just flat out sucking at their job. IT IS A CRIMINAL COURT CONSTRUCT. I get that. What I don’t get, and what you refuse to answer, is why that “extremely poor job” doesn’t routinely end up in civil court as a legal malpractice claim? To me this would be the equivalent of a med mal claim after an EMTALA finding against a physician, a slam dunk case as a DIFFERENT TYPE OF COURT (see I do understand) has already ruled that the lawyer sucked. Care to answer that without an ad hominum attack?
“Well, apparently they didn’t cover the Constitution in any of your coursework. Medical malpractice is a common law claim which falls under the 7th Amendment. It is a jury trial because of that, not because of any emotional swaying. Patent law, like bankruptcy, is a wholly statutory scheme. You’d have to look at the legislative record to know the reasoning behind denying a jury trial on patent disputes.”
I’ll type slowly again, I know “why” med mal provides for a jury trial, I just do not believe it is a system that actually serves to get at the truth of the matter. And there is precedent for changing the structure of the court to include special courts. Patent courts have been in a state of being revamped both by Supreme court decisions and by the legislature. For example, in KSR v. Teleflex, the Court instructed lower courts that the existence of conflicting expert testimony on the issue does not necessarily create an issue of material fact preventing summary judgment. This holding, together with the Court’s clear lowering of the bar for proving a patent obvious, will make it easier to obtain summary judgment that a patent is obvious. Which (if applied to med mal) would completely invalidate Mr. Bratt’s earlier argument here that the presence of conflicting experts proves that a med mal case is not frivolous. (And even before you reply – I do understand that patent law is wholly different that med mal). My point is that starting in 2000, Microsoft persuaded the legislature to examine the structure of patent law in this country as the issues has become far too complex than the original courts were designed for. Congress and many states enacted significant changes. The Court then heard a number of cases between 2005 and 2007 essentially redefining how patent law was practiced in the US. That NEEDS to happen for med mal if costs are to be brought under control.
“‘Lawyers, on the other hand, are by the normal practice of their profession, committed to sociopathy.’
Clearly that’s true.”
Actually, it is true, take the DSM definitions of sociopathy and they pretty universally apply to the practice of law. I’m not saying you individually meet the definition, but rather the construct created by your profession does.
And yes, that is my professional opinion.
“And it’s a pretty arrogant assumption that juries are made up of simpletons who can only respond to the emotional appeals of the plaintiff’s lawyer while the defense sits there like a potted plant.”
Actually it is the opposite of arrogance. I would not feel comfortable in my own skill as a juror in several recent med mal cases (e.g., to give TPA or not, to give steroids or not for spinal injury, Plavix and ASA versus ASA only after stroke). The issues are simply not clear enough (but the cases are filed none the less). The lawyers bank on the most likable expert – that is the emotion I refer to. That likability has nothing to do with truth, and shouldn’t apply. A great example is the idea of “birth injury” from decels. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been made (John Edward’s personal fortune), on junk science that is now widely acknowledged to not be true. Is that money returned to the defendants? Of course not. How did it happen? Likable experts and sympathetic juries.
And lastly, 10% of the healthcare expenditures would be an INCREDIBLE savings for the country.
Again please do not mistake not liking a system for not understanding it. Oh, wait, that’s right, you need to win the arguement. O.k., I’ll steel myself for another attack on my credibility. Let’s see if we can pre-empt.
Matt, oh kind and gracious, benevolent master of all you survey, I am an unworthy simpleton who beseeches you to not smote me with your omnipotence but rather accept me for the worthless, uneducated dolt that I am. Had I but one tenth of your academic acumen I would have gone to law school instead, but now am reduced to using crude, ineffective means to try and help people as I shuffle off to work tonight. I pray that you will look back at my work with favor, from the cushy office chair that pads your soft behind, and along with the wisdom of your council of “experts”, will allow me to keep whatever meager earnings I bring home.
Fry, if you want polite replies I will give them to you. But given your tone from the start I figured you were a big boy and could handle it.
Again, for the third time, ineffective assistance may well be a slam dunk malpractice claim. I do not know because the only way I would know is if it were tried and appealed and I had occasion to research a topic in that case. If it was settled it was confidential. It would be a claim against a criminal lawyer and I don’t practice in that area so it’s not something I would have heard about. I’ve told you this multiple times.
If you know why med mal gets a jury trial why did you ask? And then claim it was some other reason? And why do you keep referring to patent courts which are a purely statutory construct and thus not subject to the 7th Amendment?
As to your intelligence, I’m sure you’re quite bright. Most people who throw their resume up like you did are. Kudos.
As to the rest of your post, it’s all assumptions based on few facts. You can opine, Frist-like, on cases youve only heard about. The records arent necessary. Your conclusions are faith based. Who can argue with the certainty of faith? All you need now is a Constitutional amendment. Or single payer.
And my ass is quite firm, or so the ladies tell me, thank you.
I have been in trial screwing people over. But i actually have the knowledge to answer your question about ineffective assistance claims. There is a reason ineffective assistance does not always equate to winning malpractice. Causation.
For example. If a doctor fails to meet the standard of care, but no harm results, there is no malpractice case because there were no damages. The idea is that adhering to the standard of care would have prevented the harm from occurring. If not for the negligence, the death or whatever would have been prevented.
Apply that to a criminal ineffective asistance claim. First, an ineffective assistance claim is measured against a different standard than a civil negligence claim (which also is any kind of malpractice, legal or otherwise). Ineffective assistance is defined as representation that is so deficient as to deprive the accused of his constitutional right to representation. The negligence standard is failing to act as a reasonably competent professional. Actually, you can fail to meet the negligence standard while still being constitutionally adequate.
The problem is that you have to prove that if not for the failure of counsel, the person would not have been convicted. That the harm (conviction) was a result of the negligence. Most people, by the time of an ineffective assistance claim, would never be able to prove that. To win you need to win the “trial within a trial”. Also, by the time you get to a jury trial and lose, there is an overwhelming statistical likelihood that you did it. Second, add in the fact that you will be dealing with an inherently unsympathetic plaintiff. In most jurisdictions, the jury would simply say too bad, you did it anyway, do not pass go, do not collect $200. Simply put, ineffective assistance does not result in malpractice suits against counsel because it would be tremendously difficult to prove, and the chances of succeeding at it are very small.
Not to mention (and you’ll love this) a lot of Plaintiffs’ lawyers wouldn’t do it anyway because they find representing criminals morally repugnant. We don’t take criminal work (or any non-injury cases), and we do not take negligence cases against police or law enforcement.
And as far as eliminating the privity requirement, I don’t really care. I’m a damn good lawyer, and we’re insured. Best way to prevent a suit is to do your job the right way.
Godspeed, White Coat. There but for the grace go I and millions of other Emergency Physicians. This poor guy made the CORRECT DIAGNOSIS and still got sued. What does that mean for the rest of us poor schmucks out there trying to do our jobs the best we can? He deserves a “nice pickup” rather than a lawsuit. Is it any wonder the costs of healthcare are so high? If any bad outcome means the doctor must be the one to blame. Maybe I should have gone into veterinary medicine. Reading this reinforces my feeling that dogs are much better than people.
Perhaps he made the correct diagnosis and perhaps he didn’t. The first expert his insurer hired said he didn’t so he found one who said he did. How you can determine whether the diagnosis was correct without seeing a single record is unknown.
So it really doesn’t mean much for the rest of the poor schmucks other than sometimes people disagree and if they can’t solve their disagreement any other way they put it to twelve other good citizens to resolve. Same as Americans have been doing for over 225 years.
Read the case again counselor. It has never been disputed that the right diagnosis was made. The facts in dispute are if the right consult was made once that diagnosis was made and was that consult made in a timely enough fashion.
And yes, I will keep referencing the statutory courts of patent law because they have so recently been reworked to address the realities of modern life. Med Mal needs to be reworked as well.
And I have researched the lack of legal malpractice claims in criminal cases overturned for ineffective counsel. It almost NEVER occurs. In fact, in a large number of cases – certainly a majority of successful appeals, the “ineffective counsel” works with the appellate team!
The problem is that the adversarial nature of the med mal system does NOT concern itself with facts but rather with who can frame their argument better. Yep, that’s helpful to society.
I’ll tell you what, let’s put lawyers under the same rules as doctors. You must meet with every person who wants you services (EMTALA). Each and every one of them, regardless of their ability to pay, or even past debts to you, must get exactly the same amount of time and effort as any other person would with the same type of case (MSE). You must accept as payment only what an industry standard database states such as case is worth regardless of what it actually costs you to pursue it (DRGs). And if you fail to file a case, or if the outcome was thought to be less than optimal, and any other lawyer thinks they could have won the case, you’ll be sued (med mal).
I wasn’t kidding when I said that if I was smarter I’d have gone to law school. The problem is I can’t even feign the level of arrogance that would require. Lawyers never cease to amaze me. Somehow they can understand all of the intricacies of any other profession after meeting with a hired gun “expert” for a few hours, but absolutely no one can understand their profession without going to law school.
VK, the defense lawyer doesn’t pay the experts, the insurer does. I don’t know many insurers who don’t have deeper pockets than the plaintiffs lawyers. Someone told you a story.
Matt and Mr. Bratt: will you gentlemen support ending the privity obstacle to a legal malpractice claim by the adverse third party? Otherwise you are being misleading, unfair, and do not want torts to improve your profession. Your profession is in utter failure except for rent seeking. It is excellent at that.
You have dozens of duties to the adverse party in the Rules of Conduct, Evidence, Civil and Criminal Procedures. These make any carelessness negligence per se.
You will thank me later after your product gets the help it needs from torts.
“And yes, I will keep referencing the statutory courts of patent law because they have so recently been reworked to address the realities of modern life. Med Mal needs to be reworked as well.”
Like I said, good luck with your Constitutional Amendment.
“And I have researched the lack of legal malpractice claims in criminal cases overturned for ineffective counsel. It almost NEVER occurs”
Tell me, how did you “research” this? If the cases were settled pre-suit being filed, you would have to work for a legal malpractice carrier. Otherwise, you would have had to be watching the appellate courts regularly to see when criminal convictions were overturned. Then you’d have to find out where the attorney lived, and watch the circuit courts for filings for legal malpractice. In multiple counties across multiple states. Is that what you’re doing?
“The problem is that the adversarial nature of the med mal system does NOT concern itself with facts but rather with who can frame their argument better. Yep, that’s helpful to society.”
Yes, that’s what they teach in trial school. Don’t focus on the facts, just argue. Jurors are too dumb to tell the difference. Do you teach trial advocacy along with your other impressive accomplishments?
“I’ll tell you what, let’s put lawyers under the same rules as doctors.”
Doctors sign contracts that put them under those rules. I have yet to figure out why you guys spend so much time on tort reform rather than your compensation model. If you’re a better doctor than someone else, I think you ought to be paid more. The fact you’re not is not the legal system’s fault, and you shouldn’t be mad at anyone else because your reimbursement model is poor.
Although any lawyer at any time can be ordered by a judge to take a case. I got appointed for an elderly indigent person in a guardianship matter just last week.
” but absolutely no one can understand their profession without going to law school”
That’s not true. I’m sure you could if you spent some time researching it. But when you think that you can take a contingency fee in a divorce, it’s clear you’ve got some more research to do.
“The problem is I can’t even feign the level of arrogance that would require.”
Don’t sell yourself short, Judge, you’re a tremendous slouch.
“Tell me, how did you “research” this?”
Three summers with the “innocence project”. Help prepare 4 cases and heard regular lectures on criminal appeals. And to quote one of the lawyers there (paraphraing) “If their lawyer was conscious and sober at trial, then we need them to win on ineffective counsel”. I suppose all of these lawyers are setting up the malpractice cases against them?
“Yes, that’s what they teach in trial school. Don’t focus on the facts, just argue.”
Basically, yep. When it comes to medical malpractice, every case I’ve seen has come down to that. Given that many states do not require that a case be supported by the testimony of a specialist in the field, how is it that you can argue that a med mal trial is based on fact? Look at WCs trial, read the facts over again. He gets the right diagnosis, treats the patient and admits to a teaching service. So let’s argue about how quickly the surgical attending was called…
“Doctors sign contracts that put them under those rules. I have yet to figure out why you guys spend so much time on tort reform rather than your compensation model. If you’re a better doctor than someone else, I think you ought to be paid more.”
Oh my gosh! Really?!? So you can represent me when I try to “get a new contract” that lets me practice emergency medicine without EMTALA. O.k. I take back everything I thought about you. Be as arrogant as you want. And then you will revamp the way Medicare is funded?!? Maybe even remove the provisions against billing inequities so that I can legally negotiate with medicaid coverage companies! AWESOME!
You think it would take a massive legal shift (I disagree with you on the constitutional amendment – as do several well known lecturers on the topic) to create new rules or even a special court to hear med mal; that idea would be a piece of cake compared to untangling EMTALA and the CMS billing rules!
As for your chastising me regarding the divorce fees (even though I was merely building on your example), my point in that argument was that in most “money actions” the contingency fee changes the involvement of the lawyer dramatically. Interestingly, contingency fees are legal in most states in recovery actions for child support or alimony in arrears. Yep, always for the greater good.
And yeah, in this case, I’m not that much of a slouch. I can’t screw people over as much as a lawyer needs to be successful. It just isn’t in me. But please, keep trying to make it personal – just keeps proving my point on sociopathy. BTW, I’ve got pretty thick skin. Where I work I get called names, spit on, bled on, thrown up on, and threatened pretty much daily. Still, it’s better than being a lawyer!
Matt: try answering a question seriously. Your answers are flippant and not helpful to the civilians. They confirm all the stereotypes people have about lawyers, that they don’t care about the truth, just winning at any cost, even unjustly.
Also answer our question about why the lawyer will not allow torts to help the profession when lawyer carelessness has damaged the adverese party.
Matt,
I’m stepping out of this. Really, the problem is that arguing with someone over the internet is a worthless exercise. You are so oblivious to the hugely deleterious effects that the medical malpractice machine has on the health of this country that this is pointless. You are beholden to this system and that is fine for you. But it doesn’t work.
Fyr: you are right. Arguing with a lawyer is a waste of time. They are all indoctrinated cult criminals whose living depends on supernatural false doctrines. Like arguing religion with Mullah Omar.
I would like to see all product and service providers shun their cult criminal oppressors. A database of active licensed lawyers is easy to make. One comes into a store, identify them at the cashier. Then have security throw them out without their stuff. Call security over loudspeakers, “Lawyer up front. Expel. Expel. Expel.”
Fyrdoc,
You are wise to step out. It is a waste of time and pointless exercise. Matt, otherwise known as curious JD, is an excellent lawyer. That is: He won’t directly answer a question, argues in circles, responds with straw man arguments. Unfortunately, he can’t comprehend a bigger picture than his own world and see the forest from the trees.
He is a legend in his own mind, and seems to have an extrordianry amount of free time to lodge his circular arguments.
He has run his course on multiple other blogs. He disappears when people start ignoring him.
Fry I told you a long time ago this dicussion was over. Your position is a faith based one. You can’t argue with faith. And your solution is a constitutional amendment of one of the original bill of rights. Also a nonstarter. Best of luck.
Does anyone get the impression that the user called “Matt” is actually someone just acting like a lawyer, so that people really do see how messed up the system is?
The posts of “Matt” have really shown me how scary the system is.
btw, Supremacy Claus is a nutter.
Adam what frightens you? That twelve people might not agree with your side of a dispute? Or do you actually believe I’m responsible for the breakup of the black and white family and am a raging sociopath?
Adam what frightens you? That twelve people might not agree with your side of a dispute? Because at the end of the day thats what these guys are trying to eliminate so that decisions are made by lobbyists or people who only judge themselves. You got any lobbyists?
Or do you actually believe I’m responsible for the breakup of the black and white family and am a raging sociopath? And general master of the universe with a soft fleshy behind in a comfortable chair?
Actually I wouldn’t mind being the last one.
“That is: He won’t directly answer a question”
I’m sorry – have you asked me a question I have not answered? I’m guessing not, as personal attacks are where people end up when the substance of the discussion does not go their way. Maybe the better course for you would be to keep an open mind and let the facts lead you, rather than start with an opinion and hope the facts support it? Just an idea.
I asked a question you refuse to answer. If torts are so great for everyone else, why are you immunizing lawyers and judges from their great benefits? Why will you not support ending the privity obstacle to a legal malpractice claim by the adverse third party? No one else has had that obstacle for 100 years. The lawyer has dozens of enumerated duties to the adverse third party in statutes.
SC, let me know when your bill comes up in state legislatures. We’ll talk then.
And personally, I think torts aren’t that great. I’d rather people just take responsibility for their actions on both sides and the need for tort claims would be eliminated.
The privity obstacle is not in any law. It is good old boys protecting their campaign donors from any accountability, in violation of the statutes delineating statutory duties. They feel free to disobey these statutes, because the rigging is airtight.
The lawyers are the majority of legislators on both sides of the aisle, and will never vote for lawyer accountability. So there is no recourse for the victim of lawyer carelessness, which is most doctors falsely sued with weak claims. That leaves self-help, doesn’t it?
The jury is the only friend of the doctor in court. The jury has been very good to the doctor, even in judicial hellholes.
The lawyer profession destroyed the black family and is coming after the white family. The individual lawyer destroys the family one at a time. He has the productive male pay the fees for destroying his life and family, and this fee is collected at the point of a gun. The lawyer made not paying child support a federal crime. The lawyer put a bounty on divorce, so the wife gets huge pay to divorce, even when the conflict has a low intensity.
Next, the lawyer is devaluing the family by elevating the relationships of homosexuals to the status of marriage. In reality, those will never be more than friendships.
So, yes, the lawyer is destroying the American family. Why? Because it competes with government for authority.
As to being nuts, I am not the one that believes in supernatural doctrines, as the lawyer does. These are the basis of decisions that transfer $billions a year, and send people to the death chamber. The lawyer is cuckoo.
“The lawyers are the majority of legislators on both sides of the aisle, and will never vote for lawyer accountability. So there is no recourse for the victim of lawyer carelessness, which is most doctors falsely sued with weak claims. That leaves self-help, doesn’t it?”
It’s your cause, you have to make the call. Although given the number of states that have pushed through tort reform, I would think you had a shot. And, the number of lawyer legislators has declined significantly. At least the number of practicing ones, who would care about what you’re talking about.
Matt: Do you support ending the privity obstacle? That is the question, today. If not, why not?
I didn’t bother to read the other comments. All I have to say is, although you went through a MASSIVE ordeal, this is fascinating to someone from the outside.
[...] White Coat has been serializing a first-person account of his malpractice trial; you can read parts eleven and twelve, bearing in mind that you’re coming in partway through the story. (The trial has [...]
[...] White Coat has been serializing a first-person account of his malpractice trial; you can read parts eleven and twelve, bearing in mind that you’re coming in partway through the story. (The trial has [...]
Oh my gosh…do I know how you felt!!!
LTTP here, and I haven’t finished the series (so maybe this is covered), but: If Vinny wanted to you just sit there and take it while the defense slagged you off, then he should have said exactly that. i.e. “In their opening statement, they are going to trash you in every way possible. They will say flat-out that you’re an incompetent fool who shouldn’t be allowed within fifty feet of an ED. We *will* respond to this in our statement, so don’t feel that we’re letting the defense get away with anything if we don’t object to some vicious, baseless accusation.”