Comments on: Trial of a WhiteCoat – Part 24

By: avg joe

avg joe — Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:14:16 +0000

Ok, so I started at post 1 at 11:30. It’s after 1 am and I’m glad to see how it resolved.

Congrats.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:08:40 +0000

If you shot the lawyers in the head, the other lawyers would love it. They would have fewer competitors, and your murder charge would generate a multimillion dollar death penalty appeal business.

No, I suggest suing the other lawyer. To deter.

By: A. J. Campbell

A. J. Campbell — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:01:55 +0000

Where did you get the idea that the plaintiff attorney’s motive for filing suit is a basis for dismissal? Or that a judge will let you root around in the lawyer’s private life to concoct some motive you consider improper? No one but a total amateur could believe a case would be dismissed on such a basis.

Similarly, you have the “issue in controversy” idea exactly backward. If experts on both sides agreed, there would be no need for a trial, or even a lawsuit; the case would settle or the judge would grant judgment for the side supported by both experts. It is only when the experts have differing views that the issue is in controversy and the trial goes forward. The law does not accept what you consider an unalterable principle: that jurors are universally too stupid and uneducable to understand the simplest medical concept. No judge would dismiss on that basis.

The expert in WhiteCoat’s case would have been permitted to testify in my state until the most recent round of legislative tort reform tightened up the expert witness qualification requirements. Even if the court did strike an egregiously unqualified witness, the judge would then give the plaintiff an additional 60-90 days to find someone better. Filing a dismissal motion on that basis was, and to great extent still is, futile.

You haven’t come up with anything that would work in the real world.

By: ERP

ERP — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:31:47 +0000

How come Matt has not commented yet on this post??!??!?! Maybe he was the Grinch.

By: A. J. Campbell

A. J. Campbell — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 14:09:40 +0000

S. C. advises: “It is appropriate to shake each of [the jurors'] hands and to say a simple, quiet, “Thank you.”

That would be a courteous and restrained gesture under the circumstances. Do you recommend making it before or after shooting all the lawyers in the head? “For entertainment purposes only” of course.

By: Brian Asmussen

Brian Asmussen — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:14:48 +0000

Congrats and thank you for being so candid through this process. Learned a lot as a healthcare administrator!

By: Liz

Liz — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:50:08 +0000

This was a fascinating series….thanks so much for taking us along. Reminscent of the old time radio serials they used to gather ’round for in the evenings….

Thanks to Doris for the mental image of the Grinch going up in flames! Hilarious!

I’m sorry for the family’s loss, but their bringing this to trial illustrates our society’s refusal to understand that death happens and it’s nobody’s fault. Sometimes, it just happens. Ultimately, eventually, no one can stop it. When will we ever learn?

Why oh why have we heard NOTHING about tort reform during all this health care reform crapola?
Give health care away for free and then blame the docs when something goes wrong?

By: SeaSpray

SeaSpray — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 04:09:13 +0000

Congrats on the win and on this fabulous recounting of this awful experience. Thank you for sharing it.

You are a gifted writer.. no doubt one of your callings.

I can relate to your wife’s reaction. She endured this with you for so long. I know what that feels like… as we also got the deserved favorable verdict.

I do wonder why Louise was disheveled.?

You said “my wife helped me put things in perspective. I needed to be happy and stop being a drag on everyone else’s good mood.”

A wise observation that I am taking to heart.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:29:52 +0000

Btw Congrats WC, will you ever post the dx?

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 03:29:08 +0000

yes but at the same time the judge is not a doctor and doesnt know what conditions would cause death when. That is why we have expert witnesses and juries. Everyone gets their day in court, like it or not but even if we have extra frivilous lawsuites at least we get the ones that should be gotten. No system is perfect and the US could definitely use some reform. Something like England where when the plantiff loses a lawsuite they pay all court fees for the duration of the trial. That would deter weak and frivilous suites