Author Topic: Another frivolus lawsuit in the making.... (Read 826 times)

Red Tail 444 · « **on:** November 24, 2004, 04:23:00 PM »

I sure hope the dirty trial lawyers dont get involved. Hey, everyone makes mistakes...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,139535,00.html

RightF00T · « **Reply #1 on:** November 24, 2004, 04:29:02 PM »

Frivolous?? The woman is dead. Someone should be held responsible for this whether it was a mistake or not.

I can just see it now: "Oops I wont do it again"...followed by "Hmm is this Sprite or Hydrochloric Acid...we'll see..drink up Mr. Smith!"

Creamo · « **Reply #2 on:** November 24, 2004, 04:35:56 PM »

Merv Griffin!

Ripper29 · « **Reply #3 on:** November 24, 2004, 04:39:57 PM »

Friv´o`lous
a. 1.
1. Of little weight or importance; not worth notice; slight; as, a frivolous argument.
2. Given to trifling; marked with unbecoming levity; silly; interested especially in trifling matters.

not serious in content or attitude or behavior; "a frivolous novel"; "a frivolous remark"; "a frivolous young woman"

Nope..dying on the operating table due to human error would not fit in here. Suing Micky D's for being too fat would....

ra · « **Reply #4 on:** November 24, 2004, 04:40:10 PM »

Quote

I sure hope the dirty trial lawyers dont get involved. Hey, everyone makes mistakes...

Are you trying to imply that efforts to fight frivolous lawsuits would prevent this kind of malpractice from being taken to court? That's B.S. Nice try though, take a lawyer to lunch.

Neubob · « **Reply #5 on:** November 24, 2004, 05:15:44 PM »

A frivolous lawsuit is when a patient sues the hospital for serving her food during her stay that led to constipation, implicating everyone from the nurses to the kitchen staff in the tort. This actually. Woman didn't win, but the fact that she went through with it says a lot.

This, on the other hand, is inexcusable. There simply should never be a situation where such a mixup is possible. Tragic for the family, potentially catastrophic for the hospital. Everyone loses.

Except of course, Mr. Medmal Esq.

rpm · « **Reply #6 on:** November 24, 2004, 05:30:29 PM »

With Tort reform all they get is the price of the surgery refunded and any wages she may have earned in the future. Thank God for insurance lobbyists, they keep trial lawyers from screwing the guilty.

ra · « **Reply #7 on:** November 24, 2004, 05:35:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
With Tort reform all they get is the price of the surgery refunded and any wages she may have earned in the future. Thank God for insurance lobbyists, they keep trial lawyers from screwing the guilty.

Once again B.S.

Neubob · « **Reply #8 on:** November 24, 2004, 06:02:55 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
With Tort reform all they get is the price of the surgery refunded and any wages she may have earned in the future. Thank God for insurance lobbyists, they keep trial lawyers from screwing the guilty.

BS. There is and always will be a such thing as pain and suffering awards. All tort reform will bring, to most states, at least, is a cap on how much this can be. Tort reform might also add policy that will require the plaintiff to pay some of the court fees in the event that a claim is deemed frivolous.

But, you're right RPM... We need to make sure that doctors go into every surgery scared ****less that they might have to make one suture more than is necessary. We need to make sure that they practice defensive medicine so that every procedure costs the hospitals and them 5 times more than necessary... Doctors must maintain their status as human lottery tickets for the benefit of society. They must continue to pay 1/3 their salaries to medmal insurance because god knows, they only make screw over their patients to address their own needs.

eagl · « **Reply #9 on:** November 24, 2004, 06:09:56 PM »

My wife is a radiologist and hates medical malpractice lawyers with a passion, but even she thought this one was gross negligence.

She also pointed out that during this type of procedure they do conscious sedation so the lady probably died screaming as her insides disentegrated.

Without being there, her assessment of the core mistake was using a clear liquid antiseptic in the first place.

I hope the family gets a nice settlement and those responsible are decertified and not allowed to continue providing medical care, as they apparently did not care enough about the patient to properly track or label what goes inside the patient and what needs to remain outside the patient. Arrogance or a lack of a sense of responsibility seems the only reasons they would fail to make damn sure this could not happen in the first place. What a horrible way to die. Mistakes were made, but it seems like the conditions that led to the mistake could be defined as a crime.

WhiteHawk · « **Reply #10 on:** November 25, 2004, 08:04:41 AM »

Heres one. A guy breaks into the nighbors house while the neighbor is on vacation. He gets locked in the garage somehow, and has to live on a case of pepsi for the entire week until the niehgber gets home. (How couldnt he break out? I dont know.)
he sues in court for not providing enuff food for a would be burglar. He wins. (The homeowners insurance settles out of court).

Another one. The lady in the furniture store is knocked down by some rambunctious kids playing in the store and breaks her leg. She sues in court and wins, because the store was negligent for not preventing the kids from playing. The problem? the kids were her own!:aok

lazs2 · « **Reply #11 on:** November 25, 2004, 09:09:32 AM »

well... how much would she get in socialist countries that have socialized medicine? that could be our guide.... wouldn't that make all you guys in favor of socialized medicine happy?

A good comprimise? Let's get our malpractice suits down to that of other countries before we start picking one or two examples to base a system on one way or the other.

lazs

Ripper29 · « **Reply #12 on:** November 25, 2004, 09:26:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
well... how much would she get in socialist countries that have socialized medicine? that could be our guide.... wouldn't that make all you guys in favor of socialized medicine happy?

A good comprimise? Let's get our malpractice suits down to that of other countries before we start picking one or two examples to base a system on one way or the other.

lazs

Well she would not get anything, she is dead. It not a matter of socialized medicine or not, its a matter of responsability. The intial post, as well as the title of this thread, expresses the opinion that this will be "Another frivolus Lawsuit in the making". Is it you opinion that there should be no culpability for the death of this woman?

I am not talking about how much money the family or her estate may receive, it's not always about that. This was a very serious error in procedure or practice that had fatal consequences. It's a matter of responsability...

But that's just my opinion...

lazs2 · « **Reply #13 on:** November 25, 2004, 09:40:17 AM »

ripper... I am not saying any different. This is indeed a serious mistake and she needs to be compensated.

I was responding to rpm (the loser)... He seems to feel that tort reform would be the end of fairness in America. He has also expressed favor for socialized medicine in the past at least in his voting record for... the loser.

My point is that if we had socialized medicine without reigning in the lawsuits then we would simply have a bankrupted system... so.... rather than going to the extreme of socialized medicine... why not simple use tort reform to at least bring us into line with other countries?

If socialized medicine is the cure for everything then please tell me what kind of settlement could be expected for the family in such a case.

lazs

rpm · « **Reply #14 on:** November 25, 2004, 11:04:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
ripper... I am not saying any different. This is indeed a serious mistake and she needs to be compensated.

I was responding to rpm (the loser)... He seems to feel that tort reform would be the end of fairness in America. He has also expressed favor for socialized medicine in the past at least in his voting record for... the loser.

My point is that if we had socialized medicine without reigning in the lawsuits then we would simply have a bankrupted system... so.... rather than going to the extreme of socialized medicine... why not simple use tort reform to at least bring us into line with other countries?

If socialized medicine is the cure for everything then please tell me what kind of settlement could be expected for the family in such a case.

lazs

Laz, it seems you need to resort to personal attacks to back your side of the arguement. That is a sign of a weak defense.

Having been on the "loser" end of a medical procedure by less than stellar physicians I believe they should be held accountable for their actions. Try walking a mile in my shoes before you go pinning labels on me.

Malpractice insurance should be in line with auto insurance. You have too many fender benders (minor malpractice) and it goes thru the roof. You get a couple DWI's (major malpractice/ negligence) and you lose your license permanently. Damage awards should be comensurate with the case.

Putting caps on settlements only serves to protect the guilty. There is no evidence to support capping settlements will lower insurance rates. Overall they have remained the same or increased. The only winners are the insurance companies and we all know they only have your best interests at heart.

If medical wages are limited, then capping awards would be an appropriate measure. Until then it serves no purpose other than shielding the guilty from harm and maximizing insurance company profits.