What does everyone think about the 190 mil payout at Hopkins?

[Sportsdude89]

And surrounding situation involving the physician there.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[bass69]

I think it might be a case closed; he committed suicide, there was no evidence of the pictures being shared so no large lasting repercussions, and the patients get a payout for the violation of their privacy.

 

[DermViser]

And surrounding situation involving the physician there.

The physician is dead. He committed suicide.

 

[NickNaylor]

For those that don't know the story, here's a link to a NY Times article about it: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/22/us/johns-hopkins-settlement-190-million.html

 

[mysdnhandle]

I think videotaping private parts of your patients is a bad thing to do.

 

[theseeker4]

I personally believe the suit against Johns Hopkins is unfounded, and the settlement is inappropriate. Unless there is evidence that Johns Hopkins did something to cover up the physician's actions, and/or knew about it without taking action, I don't believe the hospital that happens to employ an individual should be held responsible for the actions of that individual. I believe this should apply to all areas, not just medicine specifically, but unfortunately our country's laws don't reflect this principle. I am not sure what reasonable "oversight" could have been in place that would have allowed Johns Hopkins to identify these abuses undertaken by this physician and prevent further recordings from taking place. What happened was a horrible violation of trust, but I believe blame should be placed squarely on the person or persons who have actually done something wrong, not just the closest entity with a big enough bank account. Now if Hopkins actually mishandled this once they learned what was happening, I am open to revising my opinion, but from the article, they immediately removed the physician and reported him to the police, which is what I would expect any reasonable person or employer to do.

 

[DermViser]

I personally believe the suit against Johns Hopkins is unfounded, and the settlement is inappropriate. Unless there is evidence that Johns Hopkins did something to cover up the physician's actions, and/or knew about it without taking action, I don't believe the hospital that happens to employ an individual should be held responsible for the actions of that individual. I believe this should apply to all areas, not just medicine specifically, but unfortunately our country's laws don't reflect this principle. I am not sure what reasonable "oversight" could have been in place that would have allowed Johns Hopkins to identify these abuses undertaken by this physician and prevent further recordings from taking place. What happened was a horrible violation of trust, but I believe blame should be placed squarely on the person or persons who have actually done something wrong, not just the closest entity with a big enough bank account. Now if Hopkins actually mishandled this once they learned what was happening, I am open to revising my opinion, but from the article, they immediately removed the physician and reported him to the police, which is what I would expect any reasonable person or employer to do.

By your logic then only the doctor can be named in a malpractice lawsuit. He is an employee of Johns Hopkins. I agree with the settlement.

The American Hospital Association would LOVE you by the way.

 

[username456789]

I personally believe the suit against Johns Hopkins is unfounded, and the settlement is inappropriate. Unless there is evidence that Johns Hopkins did something to cover up the physician's actions, and/or knew about it without taking action, I don't believe the hospital that happens to employ an individual should be held responsible for the actions of that individual. I believe this should apply to all areas, not just medicine specifically, but unfortunately our country's laws don't reflect this principle. I am not sure what reasonable "oversight" could have been in place that would have allowed Johns Hopkins to identify these abuses undertaken by this physician and prevent further recordings from taking place. What happened was a horrible violation of trust, but I believe blame should be placed squarely on the person or persons who have actually done something wrong, not just the closest entity with a big enough bank account. Now if Hopkins actually mishandled this once they learned what was happening, I am open to revising my opinion, but from the article, they immediately removed the physician and reported him to the police, which is what I would expect any reasonable person or employer to do.

Yikes. As DV pointed out, your ideas put physicians in a terrible position with regards to malpractice suits.

 

[DermViser]

Yikes. As DV pointed out, your ideas put physicians in a terrible position with regards to malpractice suits.

I'm amazed (well not anymore) by the number of premeds who actually LIKED theseeker4's comment, not realizing the real-life implications for physicians and overall medical practice, if malpractice lawsuits were only allowed to name the physician, and not the hospital leaving them completely in the clear.

 

[Promethean]

It is a huge payout. Even after the lawyers take their cut, the victims are going to be well compensated. Money may not solve everything, but they can at least afford good therapists to help them overcome their feelings of violation and their trust issues.

The suicide of the physician is incredibly unfortunate. Not only for his wasted human life, but because his death only adds to the trauma for all involved survivors. Sometimes, I think suicide can be an acceptable option... in this case, I think it was a continuation of his selfishness. It prevented him from having to actually face the feelings of humiliation and exposure that he may have inflicted upon his patients.

As for whether Hopkins should have been on the hook for that money... I can't speak about legal obligation... but even if not actually required to do so, I think Hopkins may have been smart to just pay up. There may have been absolutely nothing they could have done to prevent this from happening, but it did happen with their name all over it. Making restitution will be important to removing that blemish. And you can be certain that if there is anything that could be done pre-emptively, the size of this payout gives incentive to Hopkins and any other deep-pocketed hospital system to do it.

 

[Promethean]

I'm amazed (well not anymore) by the number of premeds who actually LIKED theseeker4's comment, not realizing the real-life implications for physicians and overall medical practice, if malpractice lawsuits were only allowed to name the physician, and not the hospital leaving them completely in the clear.

I can appreciate multiple viewpoints, even when I don't share them. I don't agree completely with theseeker4, but I don't completely disagree either. But now that I know that liking a thread on an internet forum will lead to nationwide policy changes and profound legal consequences, I will be more careful!

 

[heymeg]

.

 

[DermViser]

I can appreciate multiple viewpoints, even when I don't share them. I don't agree completely with theseeker4, but I don't completely disagree either. But now that I know that liking a thread on an internet forum will lead to nationwide policy changes and profound legal consequences, I will be more careful!

It's not a question of "liking" something. If you think that leaving hospitals off of malpractice lawsuits (is a good policy) wouldn't profoundly affect how physicians practice medicine and the delivery of medical care, then you are gravely mistaken.

 

[Promethean]

It's not a question of "liking" something. If you think that leaving hospitals off of malpractice lawsuits (is a good policy) wouldn't profoundly affect how physicians practice medicine and the delivery of medical care, then you are gravely mistaken.

Well, okay, let's talk about this more then.

The part that I agree with is that I don't see what else Hopkins could have done to prevent this from happening, or to address the matter as quickly as it came to their attention. I don't think this is anything like malpractice. This goes beyond that. His behavior had nothing whatsoever to do with "how physicians practice medicine and the delivery of medical care." He was abusing his position as a physician in order to be able to commit criminal acts unrelated to the duties of a physician to their patient.

I think that a solid legal case could be made that he was not acting as a physician or within the bounds of his employment with Hopkins, and that they shouldn't be held liable. And I think that case could be made without weakening the protections for physicians practicing medicine in good faith in the event of a malpractice suit.

 

[DermViser]

Well, okay, let's talk about this more then.

The part that I agree with is that I don't see what else Hopkins could have done to prevent this from happening, or to address the matter as quickly as it came to their attention. I don't think this is anything like malpractice. This goes beyond that. His behavior had nothing whatsoever to do with "how physicians practice medicine and the delivery of medical care." He was abusing his position as a physician in order to be able to commit criminal acts unrelated to the duties of a physician to their patient.

I think that a solid legal case could be made that he was not acting as a physician or within the bounds of his employment with Hopkins, and that they shouldn't be held liable. And I think that case could be made without weakening the protections for physicians practicing medicine in good faith in the event of a malpractice suit.

You'll make an excellent lawyer to be able to parse at what times a physician is "not acting as a physician" and when he's not, when he's an employee working in a hospital.

 

[Promethean]

You'll make an excellent lawyer to be able to parse at what times a physician is "not acting as a physician" and when he's not, when he's an employee working in a hospital.

So, then the Pitt researcher who ordered cyanide through his lab and then (allegedly) used it to murder his physician wife... Pitt is clearly liable right? I mean, he was acting as their employee when he used University funds and the University procurement system to acquire the drug...

 

[DermViser]

So, then the Pitt researcher who ordered cyanide through his lab and then (allegedly) used it to murder his physician wife... Pitt is clearly liable right? I mean, he was acting as their employee when he used University funds and the University procurement system to acquire the drug...

You can't tell the difference between a malpractice case and first degree murder?

 

[Promethean]

I can. I can also tell the difference between a medical malpractice case and a sex crime. Can you not?

 

[DermViser]

I can. I can also tell the difference between a medical malpractice case and a sex crime. Can you not?

Malpractice isn't just MEDICAL malpractice.

 

[Promethean]

Malpractice isn't just MEDICAL malpractice.

All malpractice assumes no malicious intent. Dr. Levy's actions were malicious. They were willful, egregious violations of the trust inherent to the doctor/patient relationship that happened over years and involved thousands of patients. It happened in a professional setting, but it was not malpractice.

EDIT: And yes, if someone deliberately harms their patients, for no reason other than their own sexual gratification, I do think that person is no longer entitled to protection by their institution.

 

[TheShaker]

Question: Why were there no criminal charges after the investigation? Was it because the guy was dead by the time it finished? I can imagine that he committed at least one felony...

 

[Promethean]

Can't prosecute a corpse.

EDIT: That may be one of many reasons he offed himself. This way, he died legally innocent.

 

[Ismet]

Question: Why were there no criminal charges after the investigation? Was it because the guy was dead by the time it finished? I can imagine that he committed at least one felony...

I read that since he never shared the stuff, there was no way to press charges. That makes no sense to me, but I know nothing about law.

 

[LChristmas]

The payout is small, in my opinion. $190 million spread across 7000 patients is only $27k each, not including the lawyers' cut. Truth be told, I think Hopkins is getting off easy by throwing out such a large amount of money up front. I have a feeling that it could be a lot worse for them (monetarily) if each case was tried individually.

 

[Promethean]

The payout is small, in my opinion. $190 million spread across 7000 patients is only $27k each, not including the lawyers' cut. Truth be told, I think Hopkins is getting off easy by throwing out such a large amount of money up front. I have a feeling that it could be a lot worse for them (monetarily) if each case was tried individually.

It isn't going to be divided equally among all of them. In order to get a cut, you have to submit to interviews and a review of your medical records to determine the size of your share.

It would have been a nightmare for all involved if it had gone to court as an armada of individual suits.

(EDIT: The way they intend to determine how much each person gets still sounds nightmarish, now that I think about it. If it were me, I might be willing to walk away from the money rather than have to submit to invasive questioning about how I was coping with the ordeal.)

 

[Time Table]

I think it was a continuation of his selfishness. It prevented him from having to actually face the feelings of humiliation and exposure that he may have inflicted upon his patients.

>Implying he actually video taped them
>Implying this was his only reason for suicide
>Implying he didn't think about the repercussions of getting caught before

Innocent until proven guilty my friend

 

[Mad Jack]

I don't feel the hospital should be liable, personally. There was no indication inappropriate behavior was being engaged in and he was immediately fired and reported when such indications were found. JH acted completely appropriately- the physician was the one acting inappropriately as an individual.

 

[Mad Jack]

>Implying he actually video taped them
>Implying this was his only reason for suicide
>Implying he didn't think about the repercussions of getting caught before

Innocent until proven guilty my friend

They did find 1,000 videos on his personal computer. I mean, it would have to be some sort of crazy conspiracy for that to happen and him to still be innocent.

 

[DermViser]

I don't feel the hospital should be liable, personally. There was no indication inappropriate behavior was being engaged in and he was immediately fired and reported when such indications were found. JH acted completely appropriately- the physician was the one acting inappropriately as an individual.

I doubt this was his first malfeasance. There usually is a pattern of behavior.

 

[Promethean]

>Implying he actually video taped them
>Implying this was his only reason for suicide
>Implying he didn't think about the repercussions of getting caught before

Innocent until proven guilty my friend

Legally innocent, agreed. He can never be tried, now, except in the court of public opinion, which has determined that he is quite guilty.

And not without cause, given that Hopkins just paid $190,000,000 for something that Dr. Levy "allegedly" did.

I could have tossed in a disingenuous "allegedly" in my statements before... but it wouldn't have affected anyone's beliefs about the case.

 

[DermViser]

>Implying he actually video taped them
>Implying this was his only reason for suicide
>Implying he didn't think about the repercussions of getting caught before

Innocent until proven guilty my friend

The video and pictures were found on computers in HIS OWN HOME.

 

[Ismet]

The video and pictures were found on computers in HIS OWN HOME.

And I believe they also found the "pen" he wore around his neck that was actually a video camera.

 

[Mad Jack]

I'm amazed (well not anymore) by the number of premeds who actually LIKED theseeker4's comment, not realizing the real-life implications for physicians and overall medical practice, if malpractice lawsuits were only allowed to name the physician, and not the hospital leaving them completely in the clear.

Hospitals should be found liable when they clearly ignore physician behavior, cover it up, or have poor policies in n place that lead to such situations. There is nothing the hospital could have conceivable done to know or prevent this man's actions, nor did they have any policies in place that resulted in his actions occurring. JH did everything they could have done, and ate basically losing 190 million dollars because this guy happened to be a closet perv criminal, something they never could have known.

 

[Mad Jack]

I doubt this was his first malfeasance. There usually is a pattern of behavior.

I've found no accounts of the story that make that out to be the case. If it were, the lawyer would certainly have said as much to the media by now.

 

[Time Table]

Yikes, I didn't follow up on the NY Times article. Nevermind my statement above. Regardless though, I'm curious as to how the investigation started. Did someone go, hmm what's with that pen around his neck when he has one in his hand?

 

[DermViser]

I've found no accounts of the story that make that out to be the case. If it were, the lawyer would certainly have said as much to the media by now.

Not in the same vein as what he did. What I am saying is rarely are these just "isolated" incidents for a specific physician. It's usually a pattern of unprofessional behavior.

 

[DermViser]

Yikes, I didn't follow up on the NY Times article. Nevermind my statement above. Regardless though, I'm curious as to how the investigation started. Did someone go, hmm what's with that pen around his neck when he has one in his hand?

A colleague reported on him.

 

[Time Table]

A colleague reported on him.

For the question, I meant if his patients ever wondered about the pen on his neck when he had a pen in his hand. Or was it like a flashlight pen thing?

 

[Drogo]

Not a lot to think about, a physician broke an Oath he swore to long ago. The entity he provided services through and his former patients now suffer from the selfish and disgraceful choices made. As this plays out a little longer, I put my money on more former/current employees coming out about his odd behavior (alongside the one who pulled the trigger on all of this).

 

[Mad Jack]

Not in the same vein as what he did. What I am saying is rarely are these just "isolated" incidents for a specific physician. It's usually a pattern of unprofessional behavior.

Without actual evidence, that is impossible to claim. I see no reason to believe the case was based on a history of behavior without any evidence of such being presented.

 

[Ismet]

For the question, I meant if his patients ever wondered about the pen on his neck when he had a pen in his hand. Or was it like a flashlight pen thing?

You don't need a pen to do a pelvic. Plus most charting is done on computers so there is minimal need for actual pen and paper unless you're signing off on something. My attendings never have a pen and are always stealing mine when they have to sign something.

 

[DermViser]

Without actual evidence, that is impossible to claim. I see no reason to believe the case was based on a history of behavior without any evidence of such being presented.

It's based on the literature. People who were found to have unprofessional behavior and sanctioned by medical licensing boards were more likely to have had prior incidences in the past, dating back even to medical school.

 

[Mad Jack]

It's based on the literature. People who were found to have unprofessional behavior and sanctioned by medical licensing boards were more likely to have had prior incidences in the past, dating back even to medical school.

You can't base a fifth of a billion dollar judgement on the literature. That's not how the American civil justice system works. Actual evidence is required.

 

[Promethean]

It's based on the literature. People who were found to have unprofessional behavior and sanctioned by medical licensing boards were more likely to have had prior incidences in the past, dating back even to medical school.

An increased likelihood does not mean that all or even most did have such incidences. More likely, even much more likely, can still imply a small percentage of cases.

 

[DermViser]

You can't base a fifth of a billion dollar judgement on the literature. That's not how the American civil justice system works. Actual evidence is required.

I didn't say it was. This isn't a court of law.

 

[Mad Jack]

I didn't say it was. This isn't a court of law.

This is the court of SDN justice.

 

[DermViser]

This is the court of SDN justice.

If a med school can take an MD from a med student months before graduation for professionalism, then I can extrapolate about this doctor in this case.

 

[ketosisevangelist]

It is a sick event.

Making this settlement public info is even a sicker move by a publicist.

We all know about the real settlements. The ones that hospitals always like to keep quiet.

 

[mehc012]

You don't need a pen to do a pelvic. Plus most charting is done on computers so there is minimal need for actual pen and paper unless you're signing off on something. My attendings never have a pen and are always stealing mine when they have to sign something.

This is why I keep mine clipped to my badge...which is clipped to my shirt and ends up dangling right in the center of my chest (I'm a chick). I have had ONE doc try to use my pen without asking. After 1 absentminded grab for it he clammed up, looked at his feet, and said "Uh, any chance you could hand that to me so I can use it for a second? "
It's also one of about 1000 distinctive (at the hospital), nice looking/writing pens I have, as I am in charge of ordering the company pens at my other job. They may be everywhere at one job, but at the hospital they are distinctively MINE. I have never lost a pen in a year of working there, despite my attendings' frequent attempts to steal them all!!

 

[Ismet]

This is why I keep mine clipped to my badge...which is clipped to my shirt and ends up dangling right in the center of my chest (I'm a chick). I have had ONE doc try to use my pen without asking. After 1 absentminded grab for it he clammed up, looked at his feet, and said "Uh, any chance you could hand that to me so I can use it for a second? "
It's also one of about 1000 distinctive (at the hospital), nice looking/writing pens I have, as I am in charge of ordering the company pens at my other job. They may be everywhere at one job, but at the hospital they are distinctively MINE. I have never lost a pen in a year of working there, despite my attendings' frequent attempts to steal them all!!

I've accumulated enough free pens throughout college and med school (since med students have a 6th sense for free stuff) so I just keep a stash in my bag. I've only lost 2 pens so far