A Blacklist of Patients and Their Families... Can we actually do this?

  • Pharmacy Job Market Webinar

    Are you considering applying to pharmacy school but are concerned about job prospects when you graduate? Join us on Wednesday, July 28th at 8 PM Eastern to hear from three PharmDs about their experiences and options outside of retail pharmacy.

Faebinder

Slow Wave Smurf
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
3,507
11
Pennsylvania
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/328/7455/1518?ecoll

Oh how I would love to see a Black List in the clinics but I was thinking it is somewhat immoral. Didn't Senator John Edwards make a living by having 4-5 multimillion dollar malpractice lawsuits per year?

I can see it now... the AAFP every year during the annual meeting submits to all members a cd with a list of people on excel sheet that are the new and updated Black List.

I loved this quote...

Dr Clinton "Rick" Miller, a prominent neurosurgeon from New Hampshire, is one doctor who supports the idea of refusing treatment except in emergencies. In his 25 year career he has never been sued for malpractice. Nevertheless, last year he paid $84 151 (£46250; 70000) in medical liability insurance premiums. He said that his take home pay after taxes was $64 000. "That's less than my malpractice premium," said Dr Miller. "This puts in perspective how desperate the situation is."

He has said publicly that he would not treat Tim Coughlin, president of the New Hampshire Trial Lawyers Association (except in an emergency), because Coughlin lobbied the legislature against limits on malpractice suits.
 

MiesVanDerMom

D.o. or Die
10+ Year Member
Nov 16, 2004
1,454
15
With my husband, my kids, and the hellcat
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
the right to sue is a civil right the average American didn't gain until the late 1800s. Restricting the amount a victim could sue for in a case of genuine malpractice is denying them their civil rights. There are other solutions that protect both legitimate doctors and legitimate victims and don't infringe on anyone's civil rights. I can think of a trial attorney whose done a lot more good in this world than most doctors, Mr. Ralph Nader. I think condemning all civil attorneys is pretty pointless.
 
About the Ads

Miami_med

Moving Far Away
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2006
2,084
9
Now the opposite of Miami
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
the right to sue is a civil right the average American didn't gain until the late 1800s. Restricting the amount a victim could sue for in a case of genuine malpractice is denying them their civil rights. There are other solutions that protect both legitimate doctors and legitimate victims and don't infringe on anyone's civil rights. I can think of a trial attorney whose done a lot more good in this world than most doctors, Mr. Ralph Nader. I think condemning all civil attorneys is pretty pointless.

Just to be clear here, you are talking about Green Party sue all business out of existance so that we can all sit around and be provided for by the government Ralph Nader?
 

Miami_med

Moving Far Away
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2006
2,084
9
Now the opposite of Miami
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
It seems unwise to piss off a bunch of lawyers specializing in medical lawsuits.

It would also be unwise to piss off a bunch of doctors who wouldn't treat individuals who make their entire living by making the physician practice environment unbearable. It makes a lot of sense to me honestly. I agree that there ought to be some sort of recompense for patients who are wrongly harmed, but that is a completely different question than should we perhaps think twice about rushing to the aid of every parasite that runs around trying to make a living by suing. As numerous studies have shown, there is minimal correlation between lawsuits and actual malpractice. I'd think a blacklist might have less to do with individual trial lawyers and be more of a tool to deal with patients who have a long history of suing everyone. There has to be some degree of legal self-preservation when you get the patient who has filed six lawsuits walk into your office with a complicated pregnancy.

The better thing would be to redefine malpractice, but it is unlikely that the government will do that. Lawyers run the government, and they make a lot of money in the current system. They have no problem going after us. We shouldn't be afraid to reciprocate.
 

Jack Daniel

In Memory of Riley Jane
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 12, 2005
991
1
Status (Visible)
the right to sue is a civil right the average American didn't gain until the late 1800s. Restricting the amount a victim could sue for in a case of genuine malpractice is denying them their civil rights. There are other solutions that protect both legitimate doctors and legitimate victims and don't infringe on anyone's civil rights. I can think of a trial attorney whose done a lot more good in this world than most doctors, Mr. Ralph Nader. I think condemning all civil attorneys is pretty pointless.

How does limiting an awarded amount equate with not letting someone use the legal system to right a wrong?

Furthermore, I almost think it's reasonable to substantially protect physicians from individual lawsuits, and instead, rely on class actions. This would seem to protect the public from physicians who are incompetent but protect the physician against petty abuse.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,200
1,261
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
the right to sue is a civil right the average American didn't gain until the late 1800s. Restricting the amount a victim could sue for in a case of genuine malpractice is denying them their civil rights. There are other solutions that protect both legitimate doctors and legitimate victims and don't infringe on anyone's civil rights. I can think of a trial attorney whose done a lot more good in this world than most doctors, Mr. Ralph Nader. I think condemning all civil attorneys is pretty pointless.

You are mixing up a few ideas here. One there is no "right" to sue. We are legally allowed to sue. If you want to sue the government btw the government basically has to allow it. You prob didnt know that.

As far as tort reform what people are asking for is a limit on non-economic damages. So if a doc screws up and it costs $1 mil to fix you then that would be covered. The cap would be 250K (or whatever number) for "punitive" damages. Crap like pain and suffering.

Any loss of limb or function is an "economic" one. So lets not confuse this crap.

FWIW, we should piss off the lawyers and I am all for not treating them or their families. Oh BTW my wife is a lawyer.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,200
1,261
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Class action lawsuits only allow the lawyers to get rich. There is no function to them other than allowing lawyers to get rich and sometimes change business practices but dont fool yourself the lawyers make out while everyone else gets a check for $1.30
 

Jack Daniel

In Memory of Riley Jane
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 12, 2005
991
1
Status (Visible)
Class action lawsuits only allow the lawyers to get rich. There is no function to them other than allowing lawyers to get rich and sometimes change business practices but dont fool yourself the lawyers make out while everyone else gets a check for $1.30

I really agree with this statement.

I was just thinking of a way to separate the physician who is consistently practicing bad medicine and harms many of his/her patients from the good physician who has to deal with a lawsuit just because he/she has been in practice long enough to increase the odds of being sued. Sometimes I don't trust a jury to distinguish the two.
 

NonTradMed

Perpetual Student
7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jan 6, 2004
2,303
12
Somewhere in the middle of nowhere.
Status (Visible)
  1. Medical Student
It's a proposition that makes physicians feel like they are 'getting back' at people who they believe are making their lives horrible, but I doubt it would be productive, nor will it get anything done. I have a friend who is a law student and she hangs around us sometimes. She likes to remind us that for every malpractice lawsuit, there is a lawyer also on the doctor's side.
 

odrade1

UASOM alum
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Nov 4, 2005
514
4
Planetary
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
It's a proposition that makes physicians feel like they are 'getting back' at people who they believe are making their lives horrible, but I doubt it would be productive, nor will it get anything done. I have a friend who is a law student and she hangs around us sometimes. She likes to remind us that for every malpractice lawsuit, there is a lawyer also on the doctor's side.

And both the lawyers get paid!
 
About the Ads

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,200
1,261
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
So true. The lawyers are the only ones in the med mal system that always make money.

:thumbup:

A little something on our boy john Edwards.. not all this came from docs..

impressed with the $152 million Edwards won in 63 lawsuits in the twenty-odd years before he ran for the Senate in 1998.

Thats about $2.5 mil per.. Oh lawyers get 30%.. or $45Mil or so.. not a bad haul! The guy is scum but if i wanted to win a bogus suit he would be my guy!
 

Faebinder

Slow Wave Smurf
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
3,507
11
Pennsylvania
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
:thumbup:

A little something on our boy john Edwards.. not all this came from docs..



Thats about $2.5 mil per.. Oh lawyers get 30%.. or $45Mil or so.. not a bad haul! The guy is scum but if i wanted to win a bogus suit he would be my guy!

Many OBGYNs know the name John Edward for the disasters he inflicted in the field.... The guy is absolute scum.
 

beetlerum

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2006
369
2
Status (Visible)
So true. The lawyers are the only ones in the med mal system that always make money.

Not true. The plaintiff's lawyer doesn't make money if he loses the case, which is often.

The ignorance on SDN about med mal is staggering. It is basically impossible to argue against it. It's like trying to fight a tidal wave.
 

docB

Chronically painful
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Nov 27, 2002
7,889
718
Las Vegas, NV
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Not true. The plaintiff's lawyer doesn't make money if he loses the case, which is often.

The ignorance on SDN about med mal is staggering. It is basically impossible to argue against it. It's like trying to fight a tidal wave.
Well I'm not going to feel bad for the lawyer who dragged everyone into court and lost. I don't see him as being put out in the slightest.
 

Sol Rosenberg

Long Live the New Flesh!
15+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2006
3,534
10
Living in America
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I really like the idea of blacklisting the lawyers and their families. In practice, it won't prevent them from getting care, obviously (I doubt it will be hard to find a "scab" doctor who would treat the lawyer and family that has been blacklisted) but it might make top doctors inaccessible to them.

Lawyers in this country are running amok, and until something happens that makes them take responsiblity for their actions and shows them that they can't run around filing frivolous lawsuits with impunity, they will run more and more amok. This sort of thing would send a message, if nothing else. That, coupled with tort reform might make the med. mal. lawyers look for an easier target. Kind of like the way that they say you should get a dog, have lots of lights, etc on your house, so the thief passes you by for the easier target.
 

VA Hopeful Dr

Senior Member
Volunteer Staff
15+ Year Member
Jul 28, 2004
24,771
42,309
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Not true. The plaintiff's lawyer doesn't make money if he loses the case, which is often.

The ignorance on SDN about med mal is staggering. It is basically impossible to argue against it. It's like trying to fight a tidal wave.

That's just not always true. Yes, there are some lawyers who will say "I'll only bill you if you win." Or if they tie their bill to the winnings "30% of settlement". There are still plenty of lawyers who bill hourly for these types of cases. They always get paid.
 
D

Dr_Feelgood

Not true. The plaintiff's lawyer doesn't make money if he loses the case, which is often.

The ignorance on SDN about med mal is staggering. It is basically impossible to argue against it. It's like trying to fight a tidal wave.

If you are going to make a comment like this you better be right, and you are not. Most quality lawyers require a down payment before they even start your case. Some personal injury lawyers (i.e. what you see on TV from the times of 10am to 3 pm) have a payment plan that included "only getting paid if you win."

Back to the black listing, medicine is a business. Any business has the right to refuse service. It would be worth your time to have a sign that says that in your office b/c you can be sued (for anything) for discrimination. Patients fire doctors and doctors fire patients. You can also blacklist patients from receiving narcotics or certain services.

One exception to the rule is in any emergent situation (i.e. life-or-death, labor, ect), you are required to give medical treatment without exception.
 

docB

Chronically painful
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Nov 27, 2002
7,889
718
Las Vegas, NV
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I really like the idea of blacklisting the lawyers and their families. In practice, it won't prevent them from getting care, obviously (I doubt it will be hard to find a "scab" doctor who would treat the lawyer and family that has been blacklisted) but it might make top doctors inaccessible to them.
Maybe they could get all their care from the scabs who serve as their "expert" witlesses.
 

beetlerum

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2006
369
2
Status (Visible)
If you are going to make a comment like this you better be right, and you are not. Most quality lawyers require a down payment before they even start your case. Some personal injury lawyers (i.e. what you see on TV from the times of 10am to 3 pm) have a payment plan that included "only getting paid if you win."

If you make that statement, you better be right, and you are not. Plaintiffs attorneys do not require down payments. Cases are done entirely on a contingency basis. Perhaps if you search hard enough, you could find an isolated example, but it is clearly not the case that most high quality attorneys require a down payment. Perhaps you are thinking of standard legal work, not med mal tort actions.
 
About the Ads

Sol Rosenberg

Long Live the New Flesh!
15+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2006
3,534
10
Living in America
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
If you are going to make a comment like this you better be right, and you are not. Most quality lawyers require a down payment before they even start your case. Some personal injury lawyers (i.e. what you see on TV from the times of 10am to 3 pm) have a payment plan that included "only getting paid if you win."

Back to the black listing, medicine is a business. Any business has the right to refuse service. It would be worth your time to have a sign that says that in your office b/c you can be sued (for anything) for discrimination. Patients fire doctors and doctors fire patients. You can also blacklist patients from receiving narcotics or certain services.

One exception to the rule is in any emergent situation (i.e. life-or-death, labor, ect), you are required to give medical treatment without exception.

You are wrong about 2 things. First, in med. mal. there are plenty of lawyers that will take a case solely on a contingency basis. I know because members of my family have filed med. mal. suits (don't worry, I don't really associate with them much anymore) before on a pure contingency basis. I don't attempt to discern whether these lawyers fit your definition of "quality" or not, but they were good enough to "win" settlements for my relatives. Though I'm no expert, I assumed that this arrangement was quite common.

Second, in order to be [successfully] sued for discrimination, that discrimination must be against a protected class. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against any non-protected class. Lawyers do not comprise a protected class.
 
D

Dr_Feelgood

You are wrong about 2 things. First, in med. mal. there are plenty of lawyers that will take a case solely on a contingency basis. I know because members of my family have filed med. mal. suits (don't worry, I don't really associate with them much anymore) before on a pure contingency basis. I don't attempt to discern whether these lawyers fit your definition of "quality" or not, but they were good enough to "win" settlements for my relatives. Though I'm no expert, I assumed that this arrangement was quite common.

Second, in order to be [successfully] sued for discrimination, that discrimination must be against a protected class. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against any non-protected class. Lawyers do not comprise a protected class.

First, I have seen first hand that lawyers that don't chase ambulances require a down payment. Besides having a friend that has part of a malpractice lawsuit and he was represented by our friends father. Also, I have a few friends that own legal practices. Like I said "quality" lawyers b/c if you are any good you will get a settlement, therefore, you require money up-front to file the case (of course there are always exceptions).

Second, you can be sued for any discrimination. There is no such thing as a protected class. They can claim it was ageism, sexism, racism, religious, or ethnic. There is a level of burden of proof but unfortunately in civil cases you do not need to prove beyond a responsible doubt.
 
D

Dr_Feelgood

If you make that statement, you better be right, and you are not. Plaintiffs attorneys do not require down payments. Cases are done entirely on a contingency basis. Perhaps if you search hard enough, you could find an isolated example, but it is clearly not the case that most high quality attorneys require a down payment. Perhaps you are thinking of standard legal work, not med mal tort actions.

Okay, Mr Cochran believe what you will. It is not isolated either, depending on if you hire a run malpractice lawyer, personal injury lawyer, ect, expectations vary. One thing to remember is that there are plenty of lawyers out there, so of course you will find lots of people who practice on contingency basis. As I stated above "quality" lawyers know what their time is worth and unless they have an individual who cannot pay, they will expect a down-payment before starting the case.
 

BlahtoThis

Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 27, 2005
84
0
Status (Visible)
It's great - one of my family member's got sued for malpractice and the family was looking for a physician to back them up (of course you'll inevitably find one). So the physician who backed them up looked like an idiot on the stand and now has had his "fellow of the american college of cardiology" standing revoked (apparently you can do this).

The fact is the system is flawed in many MANY ways. If you want to talk about civil rights think about this - are you being tried by a jury of your peers? Reasonably, the merits of a malpractice case should be tried by a group of individuals knowledgable in medical practice who are sworn to uphold the case against a set credo of what defines "malpractice." Reasonably, cases that are put forth should have the paperwork put up by both sides before such a *reasonable* jury to determine if the case even remotely meets the merits of the definition of malpractice.

You actually can say that it's the rights of physicians which are being trounced upon because within the context of malpractice, we are not being tried by a jury of our peers but rather by what is most commonly a jury of average Americans who, on average, read at an 8th grade level at best (don't flame me for this - in fact, one of HIPAA requirements for IRB disclosure forms is to explain stuff such that it's readable at an 8th grade or lower level to be able to be understood by an average adult).

The "civil right" to sue was meant to offer damages to individuals whose rights were trounced upon egregiously by another party. However, within this, we rarely take into account what a reasonable person would construe as "egregious." Now egregious has come to mean, by precedent, a cup of coffee that fell in your lap that you didn't realize was hot because it didn't say so on the styrofoam cup. Numerous lawsuits get settled out of court for the sole reason that the court and lawyer fees will often quickly and easily outweigh the damages.

Given this, reasonably speaking, there ought to be damages assessed to people and families who sue for no good reason or who do so without a clear claim but rather with some wishful thinking of getting a million dollars because something happened to them or a member of their family should also be assessed in the context of any trial setting. In other words, if you are going to sue, you leave yourself liable to being tried for contempt or are in some way shape or form liable for your decision to sue to 1) the person being sued and 2) the American legal system (ie, time of the jurors, judge, etc.) for bringing the suit forth. This would be a fair and equitable use of the judicial system because on one side is the plaintiff's claim that some wrong was done to him/her but on the other side lies the question if the plaintiff's decision to hold suit arose out of what could be considered a reasonable wrong. This would 1) allow for more cases to go to trial and avoid settlement thus allowing the wrongs that are actually committed to be appropriately tried and 2) dissuade people from bringing forth suits that are by their nature frivolous. I don't think what we have in place now is sufficient to dissuade most people and more needs to be done.
 

beetlerum

Senior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2006
369
2
Status (Visible)
Okay, Mr Cochran believe what you will. It is not isolated either, depending on if you hire a run malpractice lawyer, personal injury lawyer, ect, expectations vary. One thing to remember is that there are plenty of lawyers out there, so of course you will find lots of people who practice on contingency basis. As I stated above "quality" lawyers know what their time is worth and unless they have an individual who cannot pay, they will expect a down-payment before starting the case.

Dude, it has nothing to do with whether you're a quality attorney or not. Med mal actions are almost always brought on a contingency basis. The lawyer only gets paid if the client gets paid, and the lawyer fronts the expenses. So what would the down payment be for? The client doesn't pay the lawyer. Either the defense does, or the lawyer doesn't get paid. Perhaps you know a family member who is an exception. I have no idea. But this is the general rule.

You appear to be talking about general legal work. Most legal work is not done on a contingency basis and it would not be uncommon for a lawyer to require a down payment.

My original point was that the plaintiffs lawyers don't always make money. Anyway, there's no point in arguing further.
 
D

Dr_Feelgood

Dude, it has nothing to do with whether you're a quality attorney or not. Med mal actions are almost always brought on a contingency basis. The lawyer only gets paid if the client gets paid, and the lawyer fronts the expenses. So what would the down payment be for? The client doesn't pay the lawyer. Either the defense does, or the lawyer doesn't get paid. Perhaps you know a family member who is an exception. I have no idea. But this is the general rule.

You appear to be talking about general legal work. Most legal work is not done on a contingency basis and it would not be uncommon for a lawyer to require a down payment.

My original point was that the plaintiffs lawyers don't always make money. Anyway, there's no point in arguing further.

Well I'll let them know that they are wrong. I guess they wasted all of that time and money at Iowa and Creighton for nothing. But I agree that it is useless to argue.

Back on the topic, I love when they do win or settle the payment system. 33 1/3% for settlements and 40% if it goes to trial. As Rob Zombie said "Scum of the earth unite."
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,200
1,261
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
If you make that statement, you better be right, and you are not. Plaintiffs attorneys do not require down payments. Cases are done entirely on a contingency basis. Perhaps if you search hard enough, you could find an isolated example, but it is clearly not the case that most high quality attorneys require a down payment. Perhaps you are thinking of standard legal work, not med mal tort actions.

True. But most of these guys take cases that they think will make money for them. Most plaintiffs get 30% PLUS Fees. So the person who was "wronged" might only get 50-60% of the award with the rest going to the atty and fees. The legal system is a joke. If they pick up a slam dunk case.. 30% they can settle after only putting in 20-50 hours of their time and get 30% of 18 million (real case in chicago). My wife was defending the company being sued. Anyways GOOD attorneys arent struggling to make money. One tried to poach my wife and literally told her should could make millions since she was smart etc. (for those who dont know she graduated from one of the top law schools in the US).

I dont cry for attorneys as most are scum. And beetle, if they have a good case they name EVERYONE and this costs money and stress, then they eventually drop a few people after countless wasted hours and money, but this is what the attys want!
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,200
1,261
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
It's great - one of my family member's got sued for malpractice and the family was looking for a physician to back them up (of course you'll inevitably find one). So the physician who backed them up looked like an idiot on the stand and now has had his "fellow of the american college of cardiology" standing revoked (apparently you can do this).

The fact is the system is flawed in many MANY ways. If you want to talk about civil rights think about this - are you being tried by a jury of your peers? Reasonably, the merits of a malpractice case should be tried by a group of individuals knowledgable in medical practice who are sworn to uphold the case against a set credo of what defines "malpractice." Reasonably, cases that are put forth should have the paperwork put up by both sides before such a *reasonable* jury to determine if the case even remotely meets the merits of the definition of malpractice.

You actually can say that it's the rights of physicians which are being trounced upon because within the context of malpractice, we are not being tried by a jury of our peers but rather by what is most commonly a jury of average Americans who, on average, read at an 8th grade level at best (don't flame me for this - in fact, one of HIPAA requirements for IRB disclosure forms is to explain stuff such that it's readable at an 8th grade or lower level to be able to be understood by an average adult).

The "civil right" to sue was meant to offer damages to individuals whose rights were trounced upon egregiously by another party. However, within this, we rarely take into account what a reasonable person would construe as "egregious." Now egregious has come to mean, by precedent, a cup of coffee that fell in your lap that you didn't realize was hot because it didn't say so on the styrofoam cup. Numerous lawsuits get settled out of court for the sole reason that the court and lawyer fees will often quickly and easily outweigh the damages.

Given this, reasonably speaking, there ought to be damages assessed to people and families who sue for no good reason or who do so without a clear claim but rather with some wishful thinking of getting a million dollars because something happened to them or a member of their family should also be assessed in the context of any trial setting. In other words, if you are going to sue, you leave yourself liable to being tried for contempt or are in some way shape or form liable for your decision to sue to 1) the person being sued and 2) the American legal system (ie, time of the jurors, judge, etc.) for bringing the suit forth. This would be a fair and equitable use of the judicial system because on one side is the plaintiff's claim that some wrong was done to him/her but on the other side lies the question if the plaintiff's decision to hold suit arose out of what could be considered a reasonable wrong. This would 1) allow for more cases to go to trial and avoid settlement thus allowing the wrongs that are actually committed to be appropriately tried and 2) dissuade people from bringing forth suits that are by their nature frivolous. I don't think what we have in place now is sufficient to dissuade most people and more needs to be done.

Lets cut the crap. The jurors are people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty. These are people where getting paid $12 for a days work is worthwhile. YUCK! My peers, my ass!
 

Jack Daniel

In Memory of Riley Jane
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 12, 2005
991
1
Status (Visible)
Lets cut the crap. The jurors are people who are too dumb to get out of jury duty. These are people where getting paid $12 for a days work is worthwhile. YUCK! My peers, my ass!

Good grief, EF. Some folks still do it as a civil duty.
 

EctopicFetus

Keeping it funky enough
15+ Year Member
May 3, 2004
11,200
1,261
Arizona
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Good grief, EF. Some folks still do it as a civil duty.

Did you see the tumbleweed roll by? Have you seen a jury recently? They make the drunks and crackheads look like great people. (ok, on this im exaggerating a little)

Lets be serious, the avg juror is prob in the bottom 25% as far as intellect goes in the US. I think even that is being generous. Jack do you disagree?

Civil duty my ass!
 
About the Ads
Jan 21, 2006
13,217
6,858
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
I've been told that the best way to get out of jury duty is to show up in a suit and tie, look interested, and actually pay attention to everything that's happening. If asked, be sure to mention that you're a doctor. You're the last person they'll want on a jury. ;)
 

Faebinder

Slow Wave Smurf
10+ Year Member
May 24, 2006
3,507
11
Pennsylvania
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Man it's too bad they didnt call me for jury duty in medical school..

Get out of class for free.. and get $20... what a deal.
 

Jack Daniel

In Memory of Riley Jane
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 12, 2005
991
1
Status (Visible)
Did you see the tumbleweed roll by? Have you seen a jury recently? They make the drunks and crackheads look like great people. (ok, on this im exaggerating a little)

Lets be serious, the avg juror is prob in the bottom 25% as far as intellect goes in the US. I think even that is being generous. Jack do you disagree?

Civil duty my ass!

I've been voting ever since the Bush/Dukakis election and yet I've never been selected for jury duty--so I've never seen an actual jury.

I think that lawyers try and choose a jury that best suits their clients' interests--how that reflects in intelligence, I'm not certain.

However, I agree that people's perception of the average juror is less than stellar--kind of like a DO student's MCAT score.
 

docB

Chronically painful
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Nov 27, 2002
7,889
718
Las Vegas, NV
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Did you see the tumbleweed roll by? Have you seen a jury recently? They make the drunks and crackheads look like great people. (ok, on this im exaggerating a little)
My folks live in western NC. A trucker who was over his allowed hours and on meth and had more meth in the truck crashed into a parked state trooped and killed him. The jury of his peers in this case really were his peers. They decided that this all boiled down to a misdomeaner drug infraction. This certainly reinforced my views of the justice system and juries.
 

Jack Daniel

In Memory of Riley Jane
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Oct 12, 2005
991
1
Status (Visible)
My folks live in western NC. A trucker who was over his allowed hours and on meth and had more meth in the truck crashed into a parked state trooped and killed him. The jury of his peers in this case really were his peers. They decided that this all boiled down to a misdomeaner drug infraction. This certainly reinforced my views of the justice system and juries.

Assuming there's not any pertinent information left out of your story--stuff that maybe only the jurors and not the public was aware of....that's a great example of failed justice. Very tragic.
 
D

Dr_Feelgood

My folks live in western NC. A trucker who was over his allowed hours and on meth and had more meth in the truck crashed into a parked state trooped and killed him. The jury of his peers in this case really were his peers. They decided that this all boiled down to a misdomeaner drug infraction. This certainly reinforced my views of the justice system and juries.

It is not just the jury system. How many judges think that they are Congressman? They feel it is their duty to set laws and not enforce them. A while back in Nebraska, a judge gave a pedophile probation b/c he was small in stature (I like he was 5'4"). Her comments were he would be picked on in jail. Thankful the governor said B.S., you are going to prison bud. But the judge still sits on the bench.
 

devildoc2

Membership Revoked
Removed
15+ Year Member
Jul 11, 2003
187
0
Status (Visible)
Remember this boys and girls a med mal lawsuit CANNOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD without a scab doctor on the plaintiff's side testifying that you screwed up.

So how hard is it to find these scabs? Not hard at all, considering you get paid 10 times more money to testify in court as a lawyer ***** vs treating patients.

Thats an ENORMOUS incentive to get in bed with lawyers and lie to juries.

You want to sovle the med mal problem? Attacking lawyers wont work. Attack the scumbags they use to make thier case. Remember a lawyer CANNOT BRING SUIT without a plaintiff "expert" on thier side.

Its time to stop worrying about lawyers and start kicking these "plaintiff expert's" asses. Then and only then will the carnage end.
 

docB

Chronically painful
Moderator Emeritus
15+ Year Member
Nov 27, 2002
7,889
718
Las Vegas, NV
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
Remember this boys and girls a med mal lawsuit CANNOT BE BROUGHT FORWARD without a scab doctor on the plaintiff's side testifying that you screwed up.

So how hard is it to find these scabs? Not hard at all, considering you get paid 10 times more money to testify in court as a lawyer ***** vs treating patients.

Thats an ENORMOUS incentive to get in bed with lawyers and lie to juries.

You want to sovle the med mal problem? Attacking lawyers wont work. Attack the scumbags they use to make thier case. Remember a lawyer CANNOT BRING SUIT without a plaintiff "expert" on thier side.

Its time to stop worrying about lawyers and start kicking these "plaintiff expert's" asses. Then and only then will the carnage end.
This is correct. I don't think we can do anything without fighting the scabs, the lawyers, the malingerers and the insurers but working on the scabs is an important issue.
http://www.aaem.org/aaemtestimony/
AAEM has set up a web site to publicize "questionable" testimony against EPs. However this type of attack against paid shills has been met with rabid resistance from guess who? I believe it was FL (which is basically a subsidiary of the trial lawyers association) that specifically designated "expert" witless testimony as not being an academic or scholarly endevor so that it would be immune from peer review. Consequently the scabs have more leeway to sue for libel if they or their outright falsehoods are maligned in any way.
 

Sol Rosenberg

Long Live the New Flesh!
15+ Year Member
Feb 12, 2006
3,534
10
Living in America
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
No problem. Blacklist the scabs (that testify against other doctors too.) Revoke their board certification and don't hire them (hospitals, group practices, etc.)

My suggestions may seem draconic, but desperate times call for desperate measures, IMHO. There is no excuse for these scumbags to sell out their profession.
 

dutchman

Full Member
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Sep 5, 2006
1,106
6
Status (Visible)
  1. Post Doc
Forget blacklists. Get a good physicians union willing to strike and take the fight head on. It is the lack of balls in the medical community that has landed physicians in this mess.
 

Miami_med

Moving Far Away
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Apr 13, 2006
2,084
9
Now the opposite of Miami
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
This is correct. I don't think we can do anything without fighting the scabs, the lawyers, the malingerers and the insurers but working on the scabs is an important issue.
http://www.aaem.org/aaemtestimony/
AAEM has set up a web site to publicize "questionable" testimony against EPs. However this type of attack against paid shills has been met with rabid resistance from guess who? I believe it was FL (which is basically a subsidiary of the trial lawyers association) that specifically designated "expert" witless testimony as not being an academic or scholarly endevor so that it would be immune from peer review. Consequently the scabs have more leeway to sue for libel if they or their outright falsehoods are maligned in any way.

Hey now, just because a few thousand lawyers fill afternoon TV with nothing but advertisements to sue for everything from nursing home neglect to mesothelioma doesn't mean that we are a subsidiary. Just because the lawyers get whatever they want at any time doesn't mean that we are a subsidiary. I like to think of us more as trial lawyer property ;) .

This is important down here, because when you go broke flipping condos, you need a new source of revenue in order to buy more condos. A lawsuit is just the ticket.
 

EUA

Full Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
Feb 11, 2005
201
0
Status (Visible)
  1. Attending Physician
However, I agree that people's perception of the average juror is less than stellar--kind of like a DO student's MCAT score.

Gee, you're witty.

The litigious environment we must survive in is harsh and we do need serious reform, so no argument there, but did everyone simply gloss over the OP where a neurosurgeon claimed $64K as take-home pay? Really?
 

lilnoelle

Full Member
Moderator Emeritus
10+ Year Member
7+ Year Member
Feb 21, 2006
2,884
10
crazyland
Status (Visible)
  1. Resident [Any Field]
Gee, you're witty.

The litigious environment we must survive in is harsh and we do need serious reform, so no argument there, but did everyone simply gloss over the OP where a neurosurgeon claimed $64K as take-home pay? Really?

Yeah, I noticed that too. A "prominent" neurosurgeon. Seems a little unlikely.
 
About the Ads
This thread is more than 14 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.