Doctor strikes back at lawyer who sued him

[Dr. J?]

---

Members do not see this ad.

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0006/07/000607doc.html


Live by the sword, die by the sword. Perhaps this is how physicians should handle frivilous med-mal cases...

 

[kinetic]

I thought this thread would be about a doctor actually striking the lawyer, but this is OK, too. I like the whole "suing the medical profession is a courageous thing" quote. I think refusing treatment to laywers is also courageous, not to mention loads of fun for the whole family.

 

[juddson]

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2000/0006/07/000607doc.html


Live by the sword, die by the sword. Perhaps this is how physicians should handle frivilous med-mal cases...

These suits are not that uncommon (though apparently uncommon in that county). The standards for recovery are quite high, which is why these rarely succeed. The lawyer's conduct here appears more aggregious than some, but remember that many statutes require an attorney to serve notice against a doctor before a suit can even be filed. Even a little bit of cause to file the suit would avoid a "malicious prosecution" finding.

Judd

 

[Pilot]

Outstanding.....

 

[juddson]

I think refusing treatment to laywers is also courageous, not to mention loads of fun for the whole family.

Is that all lawyers, or just medical malpractice plaintiff's attorneys? If the latter, would it be all those personal injury attorneys who ever filed a suit against a doctor, or would those where YOU find there to be genuine malpractice be entitled to medical treatment.

For instance, one of the clients of the attorney who is the subject of the article listed above was sued for fondling his patients. Would the attorney who brought the suit on behalf of the patients in that case be permitted medical care - or would he also be denied?

Just trying to define the boundries here.

Judd

 

[terpgirl]

Thank God someone is finally doing this.

I'm going into OB/GYN, and if anyone files a frivolous suit against me I'd do the same d@mn thing. Stupid people thinking they will get my hard earned money just because they can find someone to represent them in a frivolous suit has got something coming to them... I'LL BE TAKING THIER MONEY. See how those *****s like it.

-Liz

 

[Dr. J?]

Juddson,

Forgive my ignorance, but I've seen you post on a couple of these med-mal threads - are you a JD? Just curious on your background. Not here to flame, just here to engage in constructive conversation/debate.

 

[Apollyon]

This story is 4 years old. Not that it's not relevant, but it is old news.

 

[kinetic]

Is that all lawyers, or just medical malpractice plaintiff's attorneys? If the latter, would it be all those personal injury attorneys who ever filed a suit against a doctor, or would those where YOU find there to be genuine malpractice be entitled to medical treatment.

For instance, one of the clients of the attorney who is the subject of the article listed above was sued for fondling his patients. Would the attorney who brought the suit on behalf of the patients in that case be permitted medical care - or would he also be denied?

Just trying to define the boundries here.

Judd

It's medical malpractice plaintiff attorneys - I like criminal prosecutors - and it's any who have every filed a frivolous lawsuit. Decided by who? Listen, if you want to play some lame-o word game where we parse words and define minutae for another fifty pages, I'll just throw you in with the malpractice lawyers - I think we can all identify a frivolous lawsuit when it happens.

Lawyers and common sense ...polar opposites.

 

[juddson]

Juddson,

Forgive my ignorance, but I've seen you post on a couple of these med-mal threads - are you a JD? Just curious on your background. Not here to flame, just here to engage in constructive conversation/debate.

Whether I am a JD or not has no bearing on the strength of the arguments I am making, nor their bona fides. They should be evaluated on the basis of their content and veracity, not the degree possessed by the person who posted them.

Nevertheless, for the sake of your curiosity, I do, in fact, hold a JD.

Judd

 

[Dr. J?]

Yeah, I guess it is old news. I don't recall how I came across it. I just thought it might spark a bit of debate.

 

[Dr. J?]

Well, I didn't mean to get you all defensive. I just thought it curious that a JD would be trolling SDN, that's all. I'm not trying to pick a fight since I am still in the midst of my professional training and haven't experienced the pleasure of how medicine is practiced in a litigation-fearful environment. In other words, my view of JD's hasn't been blackened by experience...yet. In fact, some of my close friends are in law. Regardless, what brings a JD to SDN? Are you merely unwinding from the office, doing research as a professor or writing a book? Or are you a JD/MD? Enquiring minds would like to know.

I think that instead of MD's cursing JD's in this thread (or the vice-versa), perhaps, we could engage in a discussion on a little bit higher plane discussing what is to be done about the current situation.

 

[juddson]

Listen, if you want to play some lame-o word game where we parse words and define minutae for another fifty pages, I'll just throw you in with the malpractice lawyers
Lawyers and common sense ...polar opposites.

OK, so now, as I understand it, lawyers who have ever filed a frivilous lawsuit AND lawyers who are interested in the definition of "frivilous" are no longer entitled to medical care.

Have I got that right, so far?

Judd

 

[kinetic]

OK, so now, as I understand it, lawyers who have ever filed a frivilous lawsuit AND lawyers who are interested in the definition of "frivilous" are no longer entitled to medical care.

Have I got that right, so far?

Judd

Yes.

And since I'm filling up the character minimum requirement: ever notice how criminal defense lawyers and malpractice lawyers always go on and on about how their only duty is to their client? They hide behind the shield that they "are doing good", but they don't care about right and wrong - they just care about winning. They could care less if their client was guilty or not or if their client was actually harmed by negligence or not. Bastardos. I wipe my ass in their general direction.

 

[juddson]

Well, I didn't mean to get you all defensive. I just thought it curious that a JD would be trolling SDN, that's all.

Just so we are clear, would that be "trolling" the SDN forums, or "trawling"? If the former, are we to assume that you think that a JD who posts on these forums must be some sort of a "troll", whose sole purpose is to get up the wick of the good doctors here?

Moreover, I am confused as to why it should matter. Why - I really want to know - do I detect in you (correct me if I am getting a false positive) a sense that an attorney who posts here is up to no good first, and that proof that he is OK (ie, that he belongs here - everybody can now let down thier guard) is contemplated second? What I am interested in is getting to the bottom of your interest in my profession. Why are you interested? What do you hope to gain?


Judd

 

[juddson]

Yes.

And since I'm filling up the character minimum requirement: ever notice how criminal defense lawyers and malpractice lawyers always go on and on about how their only duty is to their client? They hide behind the shield that they "are doing good", but they don't care about right and wrong - they just care about winning. They could care less if their client was guilty or not or if their client was actually harmed by negligence or not. Bastardos. I wipe my ass in their general direction.

What about patient's who have filed "frivilous" claims? Are they entitled to your medical care?

Judd

 

[Gleevec]

That's great that the countersuit worked out, but the fact is it wasted even more of the doctor's principle interest-- his time. What the neurosurgeon did was great because he basically called out a *****ic malpractice lawyer who cared more about his bling than helping to dispense justice, and didnt do his HW.

Just like there is malpractice in medicine, there is malpractice in law, and its unfortunate that lawyers are immune from the very system they supposedly protect, simply because they have home field advantage.

While its unfeasible for many private practice doctors to perform these countersuits, universities should be able to do this readily with their vast financial resources, and hopefully there will be a trickle down effect such that lawyers will only take cases where real malpractice occurred.

 

[Gleevec]

What about patient's who have filed "frivilous" claims? Are they entitled to your medical care?

Judd

Though you didnt pose this question to me, I think its a very interesting one. One issue in TX is that there is a blacklist of patients who have repeatedly sued different doctors. Is there an obligation for doctors to take litigous patients more interested in money than a positive outcome? If there is such an obligation, the government has only applied it to the ER. People are denied healthcare for a variety of reasons, mainly related to insurance and financial considerations, so who is to say that being an overzealous litigant shouldn't result in not taking on a patient. Frankly, not affording medical care is a nonfactor relative to the moral depravity of suing a doctor simply for the sake of buying a new car. While I dont agree with this, America has decided to make medicine a business, and as such doctors can take on whatever patients they choose as long as they arent ER. So kinetic is perfectly within his rights to not take on patients known for filing frivolous law suits.

After all, America has decided to make medicine a business. Id prefer it otherwise, but that is the system as is.

 

[Whisker Barrel Cortex]

What about patient's who have filed "frivilous" claims? Are they entitled to your medical care?

Judd

Juddson, what you don't understand is that none of the doctors or medical students who say they won't treat lawyers are serious. This is a backlash reaction on a message board that has no basis in reality. We will treat anyone. We see prisoners at our hospital that have done horrific things, yet their care doesn't change (I usually don't ask what they did, but found out through other means that one was a child molester). They're ability to pay is also not an issue for acute care. The ER does not turn acutely ill patients down. Every hospital has on call physicians that will admit uninsured patients and take care of them. I never knew what the insurance status of my patients was unless it affected their ability to get meds, then I'd work my ass off trying to get them less expensive meds and medical assistance.

Now the side of the malpractice lawyers. Sure, I'm sure some only take cases based on principal, and I'm glad those lawyers are out there to be on the side of patients that are truly wronged. But it seems much of the criteria is the ability to obtain a big settlement, not whether the doctor was truly negligent or not. I'm sure many people with smaller cases are turned down unless they pay.

The vast majority of doctors do a great job, but medicine is not a perfect science. There are known complications to all procedures, even if done correctly. We are forced to spend our time and energy fighting an unjust lawsuit just because a lawyer decided you have deep pockets.

Good luck in medical school. I hope that eventually you will understand where the anger of physicians towards malpractice attorneys comes from.

 

[Dr. J?]

Wow. I must be careful with my tone in the future. I could have sworn I was being non-adversarial in my last post. I'm sorry if I have raised your ire with my inquisitiveness.

Just so we are clear, would that be "trolling" the SDN forums, or "trawling"? If the former, are we to assume that you think that a JD who posts on these forums must be some sort of a "troll", whose sole purpose is to get up the wick of the good doctors here?

As to "trolling", where I am from it means the same as "trawling", ie. fishing behind a boat. My comment had absolutely nothing to do with cave-dwelling dwarfs from Scandinavia. There, now we have defined our terms. I was simply interested in your background for the sake of the future conversation.

What I am interested in is getting to the bottom of your interest in my profession. Why are you interested? What do you hope to gain?

However, in true JD fashion, you have answered my question with an additional question. Congratulations, you have learned well in your studies. Anyway, I've gleaned from some of your other posts that you may be a JD who is going back to get his MD. This is an interesting career arc. I figured this might be the case. If this is indeed the case, I think it would be more beneficial for the entire lot if you helped some of the physicians in-training to understand the problem on a more global level rather than beating them over the head with your far superior debate skills (I am not being facetious nor sarcastic here - JD's can debate better than MD's, this is a well established fact.)

As far as myself gaining anything personally from the knowledge of your background - I gain nothing. In fact, I could give a flying rats -ss. I am simply interested in a little constructive debate that just perhaps might bring me to a better understanding of the med-mal situation before I hit the streets to heal.

 

[juddson]

Juddson, what you don't understand is that none of the doctors or medical students who say they won't treat lawyers are serious. This is a backlash reaction on a message board that has no basis in reality. We will treat anyone.

Of course I know this. I'm just having fun.

Good luck in medical school. I hope that eventually you will understand where the anger of physicians towards malpractice attorneys comes from.

Of course I understand this. I'm not an idiot. I'm just having some fun.

Judd

 

[alcmd]

After all, America has decided to make medicine a business. Id prefer it otherwise, but that is the system as is.

You hit the nail on the head. This became astoundingly clear to me when I entered residency- the way we practice medicine is molded by business and the litiginous environment of this country. It is not at all what I saw through my rose colored glasses as a premed and a significant part of the reason why I am considering jumping ship from clinical medicine even though there are things I enjoy about patient interaction.

 

[kinetic]

What about patient's who have filed "frivilous" claims? Are they entitled to your medical care?

Judd

Nope.

P.S. Why the quotation marks? Insinuating that there are no frivolous claims?

 

[kinetic]

P.P.S. Who's joking? If I knew who these malpractice lawyers and their clients were who filed frivolous claims, I'd leave them to die on the streets without a second thought. I might even point and laugh while you're exsanguinating. Why should I respect people who are attempting to benefit off of hard-working professionals who have to sacrifice a lot in order to help others? Are you kidding? To quote Mr. Garrison: "you go to hell and you die!"

 

[juddson]

Nope.

P.S. Why the quotation marks? Insinuating that there are no frivolous claims?

I need the quotation marks because so far you have refused to define "frivolous". Thus far the term occupies a HUGE space along a lengthy continuum from "considerable merit" to "no merit whasoever". Because I believe that the term DOES come to rest at a particular and narrowly defined situs along that continuum and should NOT occupy the whole space, I put the term in quotation marks to signify my discomfort in letting it have such an expansive meaning - and moreover, to signify my discomfort in permitting it a meaning that you would, no doubt, have it attain.

Judd

 

[juddson]

P.P.S. Who's joking? If I knew who these malpractice lawyers and their clients were who filed frivolous claims, I'd leave them to die on the streets without a second thought. I might even point and laugh while you're exsanguinating. Why should I respect people who are attempting to benefit off of hard-working professionals who have to sacrifice a lot in order to help others? Are you kidding? To quote Mr. Garrison: "you go to hell and you die!"

Ah. . . you're making me blush, Kinetic.

Judd

 

[kinetic]

I see. Well, at least you're being "logical" about it.

 

[juddson]

I see. Well, at least you're being "logical" about it.

Haven't you been reading Dr.J's posts? It's all about the law school.

However, in true JD fashion . . .Congratulations, you have learned well in your studies.

Judd

 

[Dr. J?]

Again, in true JD-fashion (or is it politician-fashion or journalist-fashion?) you've taken my words out of their context.

So, Judd, now that it has been established that you are a JD going for the MD would you be willing to share why you chose to pursue medicine?

 

[juddson]

So, Judd, now that it has been established that you are a JD going for the MD would you be willing to share why you chose to pursue medicine?

I intend to be a personal injury plaintiff's attorney. The most lucrative of that is mass class-action toxic tort and product liability. However, getting those is often more a matter of luck. That leaves medical malpractice plaintiff's work. A medical degree will be a HUGE asset both in and outside of the courtroom. I think it is money and time well spent when one considers the pay-off.

Is that what you were looking for? 😉

judd

 

[edinOH]

"When that verdict came down, I was devastated," said Radolovich.

"When I see young lawyers in the hall whispering about me," he said, "I know they aren't talking about my good looks."



heh.

 

[aliraja]

So, Judd, now that it has been established that you are a JD going for the MD would you be willing to share why you chose to pursue medicine?

Wow - this thread turned into a Juddson bash/med school interview redux pretty quickly. Personally, I'm all for more lawyers in medicine - and more docters in the law. It's like the old biracial offspring rule... take a hot asian (or arab, or hispanic, or white or black) woman and mix her with a white (or black, or asian, or martian) guy and you're guaranteed a smokin' daughter. The same can be said for folks with more than one advanced degree (not that I'm at all biased 😀 )

 

[kinetic]

Just so we are clear, would that be "trolling" the SDN forums, or "trawling"? If the former, are we to assume that you think that a JD who posts on these forums must be some sort of a "troll", whose sole purpose is to get up the wick of the good doctors here?

I'm just having fun.

I intend to be a personal injury plaintiff's attorney. The most lucrative of that is mass class-action toxic tort and product liability. However, getting those is often more a matter of luck. That leaves medical malpractice plaintiff's work. A medical degree will be a HUGE asset both in and outside of the courtroom. I think it is money and time well spent when one considers the pay-off.

Note to juddson:

a) You answered your own question.
b) You showed that you are the consumate lawyer - mouth irrelevancies and obfuscations by the bushel while your actions show your true nature.

 

[tkim]

Everyone done before I close this thread? Or is there more bashing to be had?

 

[kinetic]

Eh. Either way.

 

[juddson]

Note to juddson:

a) You answered your own question.
b) You showed that you are the consumate lawyer - mouth irrelevancies and obfuscations by the bushel while your actions show your true nature.

Oh, lighten up. It's after midnight, fer christ sake.

judd

 

[HeavyD]

Judd,

Please tell me that you are again having fun with regarding your intentions for entering medicine. I truely find medicine to be one of the last noble professions. Law once was there but we all know where it sits in relation to nobility now. Honestly, please tell me that you are occupying a seat at an institution of medical education in the persuit for helping the infirm and not preventing another from seeking this as you look to better you marketability to future seekers of the modern lottery.
Your post concerning tox tort just about sent me through the roof. I am one who had to work very hard to earn acceptance into medical school. It would be very upsetting to me personally if this is how you actually came to the decision to study medicine.
If all you were trying to do was to get folks' 'goat', well, you got mine. If not, I find such a person to be of the same moral fabric as producers of kiddy porn.

 

[juddson]

Everyone done before I close this thread? Or is there more bashing to be had?

Wait? Am I the one being bashed? Tis nothing, I assure you. On the other hand, if I have offended anybody else I apologize. No reason to close this thread. Dr. J and Kinetic have just been lured out of their rat holes.

Judd

 

[kinetic]

Oh, lighten up. It's after midnight, fer christ sake.

judd

Oh I'm sorry. I forgot it's a rollicking good time when you're the one baiting people, but we have to be calm and sober when busting on you. That's some good logic, lawyers style!

 

[kinetic]

Dr. J and Kinetic have just been lured out of their rat holes.

This, coming from a lawyer, makes me giggle.

 

[mdjd]

I intend to be a personal injury plaintiff's attorney. The most lucrative of that is mass class-action toxic tort and product liability.

gimme some of that!

juddson, here's an idea i've been kicking around. tell me what you think:
Mdjd Juddson LLP

 

[kinetic]

Ever notice how, when a lawyer is defending his client, it's "I'm not here to determine who's right and wrong - that's your job! If you get it wrong, that's your too bad! I'm just here to represent my client. That's my only duty ...to my client (who is paying me, by the way)!!"

But then they stand around pompously spouting the old "we are the defendants of truth and justice and you wouldn't have rights if it weren't for us because we practically wrote the Constitution and if we didn't then at least we're the people who guarantee your liberties" line when people dump on them.

 

[juddson]

Judd,

Please tell me that you are again having fun with regarding your intentions for entering medicine. I truely find medicine to be one of the last noble professions. Law once was there but we all know where it sits in relation to nobility now. Honestly, please tell me that you are occupying a seat at an institution of medical education in the persuit for helping the infirm and not preventing another from seeking this as you look to better you marketability to future seekers of the modern lottery.
Your post concerning tox tort just about sent me through the roof. I am one who had to work very hard to earn acceptance into medical school. It would be very upsetting to me personally if this is how you actually came to the decision to study medicine.
If all you were trying to do was to get folks' 'goat', well, you got mine. If not, I find such a person to be of the same moral fabric as producers of kiddy porn.

Kiddy Porn!!!!!?????

Is THAT right?? The idea that one would devote his life to ensuring that innocent patients truly injured by the real (albiet, occasional) negligence, recklessness or worse, of a physician be justly compensated for their injuries is tantamount to "kiddy porn"??? The recognition that SOMETIMES horrible mistakes are made, and people are genuinely injured, and that these patients should be made whole is akin to the exploitation and battery of children? How DARE one din to advocate that criminal defendants have "rights" - that they ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that they ought to be insulated from the overwhelming and crushing power of the states, just as they are at their most vulnerable (that's for you, Kinetic 😉 ). To hell with trial by juries. TO HELL for the fourth amendment, the eight amendment, the 14th amendment!!! The accused are GUILTY. . .the injured are malingerers . . .the doctors are GODS incapable of error and disregard. Who needs attorneys? Afterall, the constitution ussually just looks after itself.

Kiddy Porn.

Judd

 

[kinetic]

Kiddy Porn!!!!!?????

Is THAT right?? The idea that one would devote his life to ensuring that innocent patients truly injured by the real (albiet, occasional) negligence, recklessness or worse, of a physician be justly compensated for their injuries is tantamount to "kiddy porn"??? The recognition that SOMETIMES horrible mistakes are made, and people are genuinely injured, and that these patients should be made whole is akin to the exploitation and battery of children? How DARE one din to advocate that criminal defendants have "rights" - that they ought to be considered innocent until proven guilty, and that they ought to be insulated from the overwhelming and crushing power of the states, just as they are at their most vulnerable (that's for you, Kinetic 😉 ). To hell with trial by juries. TO HELL for the fourth amendment, the eight amendment, the 14th amendment!!! The accused are GUILTY. . .the injured are malingerers . . .the doctors are GODS incapable of error and disregard. Who needs attorneys? Afterall, the constitution ussually just looks after itself.

Kiddy Porn.

Judd

Refer to the post directly above.

 

[juddson]

Oh I'm sorry. I forgot it's a rollicking good time when you're the one baiting people, but we have to be calm and sober when busting on you. That's some good logic, lawyers style!

yes, I am the one baiting people:

If I knew who these malpractice lawyers and their clients were who filed frivolous claims, I'd leave them to die on the streets without a second thought. I might even point and laugh while you're exsanguinating.

To quote Mr. Garrison: "you go to hell and you die!"

You showed that you are the consumate lawyer - mouth irrelevancies and obfuscations by the bushel while your actions show your true nature.

Bastardos. I wipe my ass in their general direction.

Lawyers and common sense ...polar opposites

I think refusing treatment to laywers is also courageous, not to mention loads of fun for the whole family.

I'll not be the judge of who is "baiting" people on this thread.

Judd

 

[juddson]

Refer to the post directly above.

Yes, that was for you, Kinetic.

Judd

 

[juddson]

gimme some of that!

juddson, here's an idea i've been kicking around. tell me what you think:
Mdjd Juddson LLP

😀 😀 😀

 

[kinetic]

Anytime. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

[juddson]

Anytime. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

I am glad we agree.

Judd

 

[kinetic]

P.S. Learn what a "bait" is. It's not a bait to say that you love lawyers or that you hate lawyers. That's just your opinion. A bait is your "I want to be a litigation lawyer just so I can sue your asses and make lots of money!" line. Were I to bait you, this is what it would look like:

"Juddson, not only do I make medical mistakes, they're not even really mistakes. I like to f*** people up for fun just because I'm bored and need something to do. And you can't stop me! Ain't life grand?"