Mocking will cost you $$$

Started by CraftyMed
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
The law was clearly not followed in this case, and I think the award was unreasonable and disproportionate. But before we start worrying that we'll get sued for making an innocent joke in the charting room realize that the point where line was crossed in this case was probably when the anesthesiologist decided to enter the joking into the medical record*. A recording of some juvenile humor is probably not going to get you into irreversible trouble. On the other hand, joking that you're going to say a patient has hemorrhoids when he doesn't and then actually putting it in the chart could get you into hot water, and rightfully so.

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

Not sure how this is defamation or med malpractice. Besides, those jokes weren't even that good!
 
Advertisement - Members don't see this ad
The plaintiff was an attorney. Doc should've known to be on her toes.

Here is the full case:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Similar threads

Groove
Dr. A.I. Will See You Now
Replies
14
Views
3K
DocEspana
DocEspana
B
How much should a night shift cost?
Replies
17
Views
2K
watermanMD
watermanMD
Birdstrike
Thanks for all you do
Replies
5
Views
2K
Mount Asclepius
Mount Asclepius
The Knife & Gun Club
Whoops we forgot to pay you again!
Replies
26
Views
4K
DocEspana
DocEspana
W
What no one tells you
Replies
28
Views
5K
HemorrhagicShock
HemorrhagicShock