sounds like the trial wasn\’t going too good for the plaintiff, who didn\’t know the potential side effects of having his stomach stapled to the size of a dime was greater than taking the average sugar pill. Odds are of the trial was not going in his favor, or his attorneys wouldn\’t have begged for a mistrial.
It would have really saved Charlie allot of time if they had explained this was actually surgery, there were actual risks, and he should consider other treatment alternatives before risky surgery…something tells me he just didn\’t listen. But what the heck; he has his dream job, makes millions of dollars, and got a couple extra weeks of rest after the surgery, yet he\’s still cranky about it for some reason. Sounds like a Democract.
More than likely the mistrial was declared because the two (defendant) doctors provided aid to the stricken juror. That action, while humanitarian, left open the possibility of a tainted jury if they were found not negligent in the care of the plaintiff. Think about it: would you be able to drop the hammer on them after witnessing them in action in a life-saving endeavor during a trial that questions the medical competence of these doctors? Given the circumstances, the judge made the right decision.
Let me ask you, under what circumstances is a surgeon liability in your opinion? Obviously, there are dangers from any surgery, but what if the surgeon did the surgery drunk…would that give a person the right to sue? Say the surgeon amputated the wrong arm? Should they pay for that? It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of a doctor you\’ve never even met. Sounds reasonable to me.
ya got me Jeff…I wasn\’t in the operating room, but I\’ve seen no allegation of a drunken doctor, or chopping off the wrong limb. What I do know is a highly risky surgery was undertaken, the patient went into an approx 2 week \’coma\’
(per his claim) and he has recovered; claims he has the job of his dreams…perhaps I\’m too cynical, but I would like to think he would be grateful he survived a risky surgery where it didn\’t go too well. Please remember, Jeff, doctors don\’t defend these things if they did something wrong; they instruct their med mal to settle out.
The doc\’s obviously feel strong about their case, doesn\’t make them right, but since it doesn\’t appear they operated drunk, and Charlie appears to have his limbs, I find you point of view to be, um, stupid.
But I recognize your right to be stupid, and your right to sue your doctor if he or she does something stupid.
It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of the plaintiff you\’ve never even met. Your sound like an entitlement seeking, bleeding heart lib. Too bad.
Steve…when did I take the side of the plaintiff? Give me one example. Funny that you assumed I was taking the plaintiff\’s side on a post about how I shouldn\’t be assuming. Try reading the posts again, and hopefully you can post something of relevence.
Vernal,
Um…Sorry the analogy was lost on you. I\’ll try to dumb it down for it for you.
If (notice the word if) these doctors acted in an improper way, they can be held liable. Just like if we went into a contract and I didn\’t hold up my end, you would sue me. If these doctors performed the surgery and didn\’t follow the proper procedure, and as a result caused a two week coma, they should be held liable. If they did everything they were supposed to do, and the surgery just went bad or the patient didn\’t do what he was supposed to do, they are not. Do you see how that works? When you don\’t follow the rules, you get punished.
Wait, that might be kind of hard for you. Try this one…if the speed limit is 55 and you drive 65, a police officer can give you a ticket for not following the rules. If you\’re a doctor and you don\’t follow the surgical protocols (don\’t worry, that\’s just a fancy word for rules), you can be held liable.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
sounds like the trial wasn\’t going too good for the plaintiff, who didn\’t know the potential side effects of having his stomach stapled to the size of a dime was greater than taking the average sugar pill. Odds are of the trial was not going in his favor, or his attorneys wouldn\’t have begged for a mistrial.
It would have really saved Charlie allot of time if they had explained this was actually surgery, there were actual risks, and he should consider other treatment alternatives before risky surgery…something tells me he just didn\’t listen. But what the heck; he has his dream job, makes millions of dollars, and got a couple extra weeks of rest after the surgery, yet he\’s still cranky about it for some reason. Sounds like a Democract.
Was his moaning during the testimony because of what he heard?
Truthfully, I wonder why they would declare a mistrial and not continue. The juror became sick and I would imagine there were alternates.
Ad,
It\’s because of the jury having a hard time being objective after watching the defendents attempt to save the jury member\’s life.
More than likely the mistrial was declared because the two (defendant) doctors provided aid to the stricken juror. That action, while humanitarian, left open the possibility of a tainted jury if they were found not negligent in the care of the plaintiff. Think about it: would you be able to drop the hammer on them after witnessing them in action in a life-saving endeavor during a trial that questions the medical competence of these doctors? Given the circumstances, the judge made the right decision.
Given the high excitement of a med-mal proceeding, my assumption was that the juror was moaning due to boredom and was about ready to pass out…
What he probably needed was a good cup of coffee… like he could have had if he\’d ordered from http://www.Javamo.com!
Sorry, a shameless plug, but they truly do have some of the best coffee I\’ve tasted!
Vernal,
Let me ask you, under what circumstances is a surgeon liability in your opinion? Obviously, there are dangers from any surgery, but what if the surgeon did the surgery drunk…would that give a person the right to sue? Say the surgeon amputated the wrong arm? Should they pay for that? It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of a doctor you\’ve never even met. Sounds reasonable to me.
ya got me Jeff…I wasn\’t in the operating room, but I\’ve seen no allegation of a drunken doctor, or chopping off the wrong limb. What I do know is a highly risky surgery was undertaken, the patient went into an approx 2 week \’coma\’
(per his claim) and he has recovered; claims he has the job of his dreams…perhaps I\’m too cynical, but I would like to think he would be grateful he survived a risky surgery where it didn\’t go too well. Please remember, Jeff, doctors don\’t defend these things if they did something wrong; they instruct their med mal to settle out.
The doc\’s obviously feel strong about their case, doesn\’t make them right, but since it doesn\’t appear they operated drunk, and Charlie appears to have his limbs, I find you point of view to be, um, stupid.
But I recognize your right to be stupid, and your right to sue your doctor if he or she does something stupid.
Jeff-
It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of the plaintiff you\’ve never even met. Your sound like an entitlement seeking, bleeding heart lib. Too bad.
Steve…when did I take the side of the plaintiff? Give me one example. Funny that you assumed I was taking the plaintiff\’s side on a post about how I shouldn\’t be assuming. Try reading the posts again, and hopefully you can post something of relevence.
Vernal,
Um…Sorry the analogy was lost on you. I\’ll try to dumb it down for it for you.
If (notice the word if) these doctors acted in an improper way, they can be held liable. Just like if we went into a contract and I didn\’t hold up my end, you would sue me. If these doctors performed the surgery and didn\’t follow the proper procedure, and as a result caused a two week coma, they should be held liable. If they did everything they were supposed to do, and the surgery just went bad or the patient didn\’t do what he was supposed to do, they are not. Do you see how that works? When you don\’t follow the rules, you get punished.
Wait, that might be kind of hard for you. Try this one…if the speed limit is 55 and you drive 65, a police officer can give you a ticket for not following the rules. If you\’re a doctor and you don\’t follow the surgical protocols (don\’t worry, that\’s just a fancy word for rules), you can be held liable.
I hope this clears it up for you.