Mocking will cost you $$$

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

CraftyMed

Crafty in the ED
15+ Year Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2004
Messages
78
Reaction score
27
http://6abc.com/news/patient-awarded-$500k-after-anesthesiologist-mocked-him-during-surgery/803439/

http://6abc.com/health/listen-patient-records-doctors-mocking-him-during-surgery/802568/

The second link has the recording of the procedure in it. Just think about what you've said within ear shot of your patients and their families.

Members don't see this ad.
 
Just scary how dumb juries are...

No doubt the physician were in the wrong...but this just shows juries go solely on emotion and don't give two ****s about the actual law. I have no clue how this amounts to either libel or med mal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Members don't see this ad :)
The law was clearly not followed in this case, and I think the award was unreasonable and disproportionate. But before we start worrying that we'll get sued for making an innocent joke in the charting room realize that the point where line was crossed in this case was probably when the anesthesiologist decided to enter the joking into the medical record*. A recording of some juvenile humor is probably not going to get you into irreversible trouble. On the other hand, joking that you're going to say a patient has hemorrhoids when he doesn't and then actually putting it in the chart could get you into hot water, and rightfully so.

*The anesthesiologist and her group will have to pay, while the gastroenterologist and the medical assistant (who also made jokes) were dismissed from the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Interesting that the plaintiff was allowed to remain nameless in the news stories, while the doctors' names are plastered all over.

Not sure how this is defamation or med malpractice. Besides, those jokes weren't even that good!
 
Maybe I missed something but where did the medical malpractice come from?
 
I'm going to start keeping a "swear jar" at the nurses station. Everytime I say something bad about a patient I'll put a dollar in the jar. By the end of each shift I should have $500,000 in the jar and I can use it to pay for any cases against me for mean things I say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
The plaintiff was an attorney. Doc should've known to be on her toes.

Here is the full case:

 
Last edited:
The only mistake here was not to settle out of court, pre-trial. They rolled the dice on whether a jury would put emotion aside and ignore the verbal ridiculing and humiliation of a patient and rule by the strict letter of the law, and they lost. There is zero surprise in that, to me. Hell, the Supreme Court can't even put emotion aside and rule by the strict letter of the law.


“Words no longer have meaning"-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in dissent of upholding SCOTUScare.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-tax-subsidies-under-obamacare/
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
The law was clearly not followed in this case, and I think the award was unreasonable and disproportionate. But before we start worrying that we'll get sued for making an innocent joke in the charting room realize that the point where line was crossed in this case was probably when the anesthesiologist decided to enter the joking into the medical record*. A recording of some juvenile humor is probably not going to get you into irreversible trouble. On the other hand, joking that you're going to say a patient has hemorrhoids when he doesn't and then actually putting it in the chart could get you into hot water, and rightfully so.

*The anesthesiologist and her group will have to pay, while the gastroenterologist and the medical assistant (who also made jokes) were dismissed from the case.

Everyone has hemorrhoids. It's normal anatomy
 
I think the plaintiff is probably either a high-profile government official or works in the intelligence community. That is probably why they wanted anonymity.

Or he wanted to publicly shame the physicians by listing their names, while not having to endure the same. This is completely a double standard. I was really shocked to discover that the audio was admissible at trial because wiretapping rules in the state of Virginia only require that one person give consent to be recorded – the person making the recording counts.
 
Or he wanted to publicly shame the physicians by listing their names, while not having to endure the same. This is completely a double standard. I was really shocked to discover that the audio was admissible at trial because wiretapping rules in the state of Virginia only require that one person give consent to be recorded – the person making the recording counts.

Wait, you said you were shocked the audio was admissible at trial, but then you said that only one person has to consent. Why are you shocked? It seems it's completely legal, which means it's admissible.

Most states only require one person to consent. The patient may not have been a party to the conversation, but he was present for the conversation, and therefore his consent allows him the ability to record.
 
Wait, you said you were shocked the audio was admissible at trial, but then you said that only one person has to consent. Why are you shocked? It seems it's completely legal, which means it's admissible.

Most states only require one person to consent. The patient may not have been a party to the conversation, but he was present for the conversation, and therefore his consent allows him the ability to record.
The anesthesia thread had something about that. Apparently the law in VA is such that if you're not an active part of the conversation and its not in a public place, then its not covered by that law. Since the patient knew he was going to be asleep, one could argue that he wasn't an active part of the conversation.
 
Top