Mal practice case: snakebite

[Mark A. Keene]

That link leads to a rabbit hole of legal paperwork. Makes me glad I never wanted to be a lawyer and really sorry for the judges who have to read it all. I wonder if they really do read it all. I read the final decision. 14 pages long and 5 of those pages were spent investigating the possible meanings of the words "willful and wanton negligence" They compared potential meanings from dozens of other cases and Texas laws where those words were used in various contexts. I've had undergraduate philosophy courses that involved less circular reflection. In the end I'm not sure the judge had decided what they meant but decided whatever they meant that standard hadn't been breached. Nice to see common sense prevail but a little scary how we get to common sense.

As for Dr Abo. The final decision still referred to him as "Abo is a highly credentialed toxinologist who specializes in snake envenomation;" That seems like a stretch. As near as I can tell there is still no clinical specialty of toxinology. toxinology training There are a few organizations that it looks like anyone can join by professing their interest in envenomations. IST NAST
So, you can be interested in toxinology but it doesn't seem like you can be credentialed, highly or otherwise, in it. If he really gives antivenom to every snake bite immediately as he said, he is committing malpractice and not following the manufacturers recommendations. First person to develop anaphylaxis after being treated by him should be suing the crap out of him. I wish there were more consequences for hired guns like this. There are better ways to make a living.

Apologies on the late reply. I don't get alerts, so I just randomly check in to see what y'all are up to. I would add 2 things re Abo. First, the summary judgment standard (dismissing a case before trial) requires viewing the evidence in favor of the opponent. All credibility deteriminations are also made in favor of the opponent. Although Abo's credibility and qualifications are questionable, that is not fertile ground in a summary judgment proceeding. That's why you don't see Abo's crebility questioned and the SCT giving him the benefit of the doubt. Second point--my experience has taught me that juries don't care much about experts anyway. Nonetheless, we still focus on retaining the best, and challenging the opponent's experts. But, I'm not sure that is the most important ingredient to a successful defense. Instead, it's much more important for my client to connect personally with the jury, to be liked. If the jury likes my client, they trust my client, and we win. As I mentioned previously--documentation is the foundation of a successful defense. Add in a likeable client, and I really like our chances.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[shaggybill]

...

Kind of off topic, but as an avid amateur herpetologist who sticks his nose in snakebites/treatment and is familiar with big names in that world, I'm curious if Spencer Greene, MD was consulted during any of these proceedings since he is in TX and considered a leading expert in snakebite treatment.

 

[Socrates25]

Our malpractice system is broken because it's a lie.

What I mean by this is that state laws state that a doctor has to break a "standard of practice" in order to be guilty of malpractice.

Now who sets the "standard of practice"? Is it a random doctor serving as an expert witness? Or is it a professional society composed of many members who collaborate to set standards?

The court system doesn't care what the ACEP position statement or pratice protocol says. All the court cares about is expert A vs expert B in the courtroom. It's an outrageous sham that says one thing but works in exact opposite of what it says.

 

[miacomet]

There are no laws anymore.

Except hopefully the family (that showed willful and wanton neglect by the parents who were clearly not properly caring for their child and allowed a snake to bite her) is hopefully on the hook for a bajillion dollars of attorney fees. And the doc won. He needs to countersue for malicious and frivolous intent on the part of the family. And report them to DCFS for neglect.