Surgeon Ordered to Pay $15M to Sister of Kelly Ripa

[Goober]

---

Members do not see this ad.

So it must have been some serious malpractice that left her severely disabled? Umm no...

"Linda Ripa, 30, was an aspiring model and actress when she was nearly killed in a 1999 car accident that fractured her pelvis, sternum and ankle and endangered her eight-month pregnancy.

She claimed in her lawsuit that a surgeon who operated on the ankle three days after the crash rushed her into surgery unnecessarily without telling her of the risks, then improperly set her broken bones.

Medical experts testifying for Ripa at trial said the operation left her foot permanently deformed, made it difficult to walk and caused nerve damage that gives her constant pain."

And people wonder why malpractice premiums are so high in Philly


http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/ontv/020304_ent_ripa_sister.html

 

[Cowboy DO]

She lost a $150,000 job working for her sister 🙄 . If you ask me she didnt earn/deserve that money, let alone 15 mill. Dante should open up his 9th circle of hell for people like this.

This stuff makes me irate.

 

[questionguy]

Perhaps you should look into both sides of the story before passing you judgement of frivolity based upon a newspaper article.
Her bones were improperly set and she is no longer able to walk without a cane/she is not able to run and play with her kids/she is not able to walk up and down the run-way as a model.

If you were a surgeon and after an accident had your hand set in the wrong fashion and it cost you your livelihood you might think differently.

This is not to say all law suits have merit. Just don't automatically dismiss them b/c we are on this side of the gavel.

 

[juddson]

I agree with Questionguy.

And Goober, I'm afraid I don't quite understand your line of reasoning. The first line of your post suggests that there was NOT "serious malpractice" (by this, I suppose you mean, no serious negligence on the part of the doctor) and then go on to quote the article which says the doctor improperly set her bones, which according to a medical experts, deformed the appendage, made it difficult to walk and caused constant nerve pain.

Is it that you think there was no negligence (your supporting material - the only material you provide us - seems to suggest there was), that there was no real injury (again, the only things you quote suggest there were) or that despite the injury and negligence, the award it excessive?

Which is it? Frothing at the mouth while flayling wildly an argument does not make.

Judd

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by questionguy
Perhaps you should look into both sides of the story before passing you judgement of frivolity based upon a newspaper article.
Her bones were improperly set and she is no longer able to walk without a cane/she is not able to run and play with her kids/she is not able to walk up and down the run-way as a model.

If you were a surgeon and after an accident had your hand set in the wrong fashion and it cost you your livelihood you might think differently.

This is not to say all law suits have merit. Just don't automatically dismiss them b/c we are on this side of the gavel.

Where does it say that she cannot walk without a cane? Where does it say that she is a runway model?

The problem is that pretty much you can pay a "medical expert" to say what you want them to say and most jurys will not know the difference. You don't think that 15 million is an outrageous amount?

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by juddson
I agree with Questionguy.

And Goober, I'm afraid I don't quite understand your line of reasoning. The first line of your post suggests that there was NOT "serious malpractice" (by this, I suppose you mean, no serious negligence on the part of the doctor) and then go on to quote the article which says the doctor improperly set her bones, which according to a medical experts, deformed the appendage, made it difficult to walk and caused constant nerve pain.

Is it that you think there was no negligence (your supporting material - the only material you provide us - seems to suggest there was), that there was no real injury (again, the only things you quote suggest there were) or that despite the injury and negligence, the award it excessive?

Which is it? Frothing at the mouth while flayling wildly an argument does not make.

Judd

I think the award is very excessive.

This woman was in a very serious accident. She fractured her pelvis and sternum as well as her ankle. She probably had internal inujuries since these type of fractures in MVAs are serious. How do we know that the nerve damage was not a result of her accident? We will never know, but you can sure as hell pay a "expert witness" to say that it was the surgeon's fault.
How do we know that the fracture was improperly set? Maybe it was a complex fracture that would have required a second operation in any case? Many complex fractures do. Many serious injuries do not result in perfect outcomes. But I am sure you can pay your expert witness to say what you want. All the jury sees is 2 experts disagreeing and a pityful plantiff.

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by Goober
I think the award is very excessive.

This woman was in a very serious accident. She fractured her pelvis and sternum as well as her ankle. She probably had internal inujuries since these type of fractures in MVAs are serious. How do we know that the nerve damage was not a result of her accident? We will never know, but you can sure as hell pay a "expert witness" to say that it was the surgeon's fault.
How do we know that the fracture was improperly set? Maybe it was a complex fracture that would have required a second operation in any case? Many complex fractures do. Many serious injuries do not result in perfect outcomes. But I am sure you can pay your expert witness to say what you want. All the jury sees is 2 experts disagreeing and a pityful plantiff.

I'm sympathetic with the notion that the award is excessive. 15 million is a lot. And I gathered that this was your real beef with the article in the first place. But you went too far.

Aside from the award, you simply have no basis whatsoever to come to any conclusions regarding the degree of negligence, and the extent to which the negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. Your sorta, kinda, general notion that an expert can be paid to say anything does not suggest in the least that there was no medical malpractice here. You don't know what was said in the courtroom, what the medical records show, what the defense experts presented (or where unable to present). It's all just idle speculation on your part based on absolutely no insight into the actual case itself other than what the article said. You are the best juror I've ever seen. You can reach a verdict without having heard a shred of evidence.

Judd

 

[edinOH]

If, God forbid, I'm ever in a serious accident and my ankle is destroyed, I'm going to sue the orthopod for $15M if he doesn't put it perfectly back together again. I don't see what the big deal is. After all, orthosurg is so simple really. Take broken bone + nail = good as new. Everybody knows that. I call it Ripa's Triad.

Maybe I'll take one of my wife's nice dinner plates and thow it on the floor. When the ceramic shop isn't able to glue it perfectly back together, I'll demand they buy her a whole new set.

 

[Thoinga Thoing]

Juddson,

What is your area of study, if I may ask? Based on your posts here, it doesn't appear that the field of medicine is your field of expertise. As such, I would venture to say that you are far from qualified to speak to issues of medical malpractice purely from a medical standpoint.

 

[Goober]

Originally posted by juddson
I'm sympathetic with the notion that the award is excessive. 15 million is a lot. And I gathered that this was your real beef with the article in the first place. But you went too far.

Aside from the award, you simply have no basis whatsoever to come to any conclusions regarding the degree of negligence, and the extent to which the negligence was the proximate cause of the injuries. Your sorta, kinda, general notion that an expert can be paid to say anything does not suggest in the least that there was no medical malpractice here. You don't know what was said in the courtroom, what the medical records show, what the defense experts presented (or where unable to present). It's all just idle speculation on your part based on absolutely no insight into the actual case itself other than what the article said. You are the best juror I've ever seen. You can reach a verdict without having heard a shred of evidence.

Judd

I haven't reached a verdict on his guilt or innoncence. Show me where I said he was innoncent. Yes I was speculating, but I was simply offering possible explanations to the conclusions that were reported by the so called medical expert in the news article.

 

[devildoc2]

John Edwards had to go thru 41 "expert" witnesses until he finally found one who would agree to his claims.

I wonder how many "experts" the plaintiffs attorney sifted thru before he found one who would say the magic words in court.

 

[Robz]

15 mil? Another reason that there should be caps on pain and suffering awards.

and people wonder why insurance premiums are so high.....

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by edinOH
If, God forbid, I'm ever in a serious accident and my ankle is destroyed, I'm going to sue the orthopod for $15M if he doesn't put it perfectly back together again. I don't see what the big deal is. After all, orthosurg is so simple really. Take broken bone + nail = good as new. Everybody knows that. I call it Ripa's Triad.

Maybe I'll take one of my wife's nice dinner plates and thow it on the floor. When the ceramic shop isn't able to glue it perfectly back together, I'll demand they buy her a whole new set.

Agreed. As I said above, $15M for a deformed ankle seems excessive. We agree on that 100%. But, my other point is not address by you. You have no basis of any kind (despite the fact that you are a physician) to make a judgement regarding whether malpractice took place in this particular case - nor do I. You have no basis - whatsoever - to determine whether or not the standard of care in this case was complied with, or whether any deviation from that care did or did not lead to the injury complained of.

That's my whole point. I'm not (and have not, and would not presume to) claim(ing) that malpractice took place here, or that the surgeon's care failed to comform with the prevailing standard. For one, we don't have the trial transcrips. We don't have the testimony for the plaintiff's expert. We don't have the testimony for the defense experts. We don't have the medical records. We don't have the police report from the accident. The fact is, we don't have ANY information WHATSOEVER about this incident OTHER than what it written in that article. That being the case, I have no idea how Goober (or you) could possibly come to any conclusion that there was no malpractice here.

So, what is it then, despite knowing absolutely nothing about this particular case other than the statements in the article suggesting that the surgeon set the bones "improperly" leads you and Goober (and I gather, some of the other below you in this thread) to conclude that no malpractice occurred here?

As i said, I agree with you that a reaonable determination could be made that that, perhaps, the award is excessive. The nature of the injury seems evident from the article, and $15M seems like way too much. But, that is an entirely distinct issue from the one concerning whether there was a deviation from the standard of care. And there is NOTHING in the article to suggest that the doctor acted properly. IN fact, what LITTLE there is in the article regarding the standard of care suggests (if it suggests anything at all) that in fact some medical errors took place - as testified to by the medical experts, none of whom are a party to the case. You arguments that these injuries could have resulted from the crash itself are 100% valid. Makes perfect sense to me. But you don't know if the jury considered that and decided to reject it. You don't know whether the plaintiff's experts considered it, and in their professional opinion, determined that the pain was caused by the surgery and not the crash. You just don't know. You have no basis whatsoever to make the conclusion one way or the other other than what is in the article.

So, without knowing anything about the case other than what is printed in the article, I am left once again to wonder what induces in you (and your ilk) this knee-jerk reaction to assume, without any information whatsoever, that the doctor acted properly, despite a jury determining that he did not.

Wouldn't the intellectually honest answer have been something like "geez, this is bull****!!! $15M for a screwed up ankle??!!! That's way too much. I mean, come on, I have no idea if the doctor screwed or not, but even if he did, that's just too much for this sort of injury. As the article suggests, nobody would have dreamed of such a large award. No wonder insurance premiums in Philly are so high."

In any event, I have no idea whether real malpractice took place here. I'm not making a judgment one way or the other. My point throughout the this thread has been to merely rebut your presumption, despite what is written (and not written) in the article that no "serious" malpractice took place. We just don't know.

Don't you see what I'm getting at here. Maybe we could have an intelligent conversation about this.

Judd

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by Thoinga Thoing
Juddson,

What is your area of study, if I may ask? Based on your posts here, it doesn't appear that the field of medicine is your field of expertise. As such, I would venture to say that you are far from qualified to speak to issues of medical malpractice purely from a medical standpoint.

I'm NOT speaking to this medical malpractice claim from a medical standpoint. I'm not a physician. And even if I were, how could I have ANYTHING of value to say on the issue regarding whether the standard of care was deviated from by the surgeon, as I HAVE NOT see the medical records. I have not seen the trial transcripts. I don't know (other than what is written in the article) what the expert testimony was, what it was based on, and what final opinions were reached. I don't know what the defense experts testified to. I haven't the slightest clue what sorts of injuries were caused by the crash and which ones were caused by the surgeon. None of that information is available to me. My point has been THROUGHOUT this thread that Goober (and EdinOH) don't know any of this either. They know absolutely NOTHING about this case other than what little information is contained in the article. And yet, they seem perfecly content (perhaps Goober more than EdinOH) to presume, without knowing more, that no serious medical malpractice has taken place.

As i said, I agree that the award is excessive. That sort of information seems like a reasonable inference from the article. In fact, one could argue the gist of the article is that the award is too high. Fair enough. I agree. But on the question of negligence, NOBODY on this thread has any basis whatsoever to pass judgement on whether the standard of care was complied with. I make NO assumptions one way or the other other than pointing out what the article says (true or otherwise).

My question to you (and those on this thread above you) is to explain to me how you, without having any of the information I listed above, could presume that the jury almost certainly got it wrong? Is it because you are a doctor, and everybody knows doctors never deviate from the standard of care? Is it because you presume all lawyers to be crooks and liars, and if a plaintiff's attorney says malpractice took place, we know it must not have? Is it because you think that Juries are stupid, and therefore if a jury decides something one way, it must be the opposite? Which is it?

The answer, of course, is that you have NO CLUE whether the standard of care was deviated from in this case (nor do I). So, I'd just like to know what it is that causes you to automatically assume that the jury got it wrong (other than the award issue, which, as i said, seems excessive on its face).

Now, if you want to have an intelligent conversation about the philosophy and perils of determining malpractice, I'm all game. But, quite frankly, I sick and tired of the snobbery and innuendo evident here and on the other threads. I don't have to be a doctor to recognize that your being a doctor gives you no special powers to devine whether malpractice took place in this case without ANY information suggesting one way or the other.

You with me?

Judd

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by Goober
I haven't reached a verdict on his guilt or innoncence. Show me where I said he was innoncent. Yes I was speculating, but I was simply offering possible explanations to the conclusions that were reported by the so called medical expert in the news article.

I think I explained that clearly in my last post to you. The first line of your original post suggested that no serious malpractice took place. You said "So it must have been some serious malpractice that left her severely disabled? Umm no..." And i agree with you that all of those possible explanations you offered could have accounted for the injury. My point is that you have no basis to determine that those explanations were not properly dismissed by the jury (and experts) at trial. All you know about the case is what's written in the article. And all that's written in the article says that an expert testified that the bones were set improperly and that the patient now suffers various injuries resulting therefrom.

My point in all these threads is merely to point out that there is no basis to assume that these determinations are erroneous if all you have a snipit from the paper. It's perfectly fine to point out the perils of adjudicating culpability (maybe these injuries resulted from the accident- - a perfectly reasonable concern). But you have basis to conclude that the experts and jury did not consider this. As the second post in this thread suggsted to you, why not reserve judgment in those cases where you have basically no information.

The point is, I see what you are saying. And it makes perfect sense. But it's a far cry from claiming that no serious malpratice took place here. As you said, "we'll never know". So, what are we to make of your implication in your first post?

Judd

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by devildoc2
John Edwards had to go thru 41 "expert" witnesses until he finally found one who would agree to his claims.

I wonder how many "experts" the plaintiffs attorney sifted thru before he found one who would say the magic words in court.

I have no idea. Neither do you. Your tone is clear though. You presume that the plaintiff's in this case had to go thourgh many many experts to say the "magic words". But you have no basis for this presumption (this innuendo) other than the missguided belief (based on vitually no actual information about this case at all) that there was certainly no genuine deviation from the standard of care for which a legitimate expert would testify. Why do you make this presumption? I don't make any presumptions. I don't know anything about the case (or the expert witnesses, or the conduct of the surgeon) which suggests to me that malpractice took place.

My point is that you are jumping to conclusions because, perhaps, you think (irrationally) that all lawyers are scum, and that if they said it happened, it most certainly did not - or perhaps you think that surgeons are incapable of making medical errors, and so of course the plaintiff's attorney's had to go through 100 experts before they could find one who would perjure himself on the stand. Which is it? Hu?

Unless you are prepared to defend the notion that doctors are incapable of deviating from the standard of care, you have to agree that some malpractice cases are legitimate. In some cased people are injured by their doctors. And you simply have no basis for determining that this case is not one of them.

Judd

 

[edinOH]

Originally posted by juddson
Agreed. As I said above, $15M for a deformed ankle seems excessive. We agree on that 100%. But, my other point is not address by you. You have no basis of any kind (despite the fact that you are a physician) to make a judgement regarding whether malpractice took place in this particular case - nor do I. You have no basis - whatsoever - to determine whether or not the standard of care in this case was complied with, or whether any deviation from that care did or did not lead to the injury complained of.

That's my whole point. I'm not (and have not, and would not presume to) claim(ing) that malpractice took place here, or that the surgeon's care failed to comform with the prevailing standard. For one, we don't have the trial transcrips. We don't have the testimony for the plaintiff's expert. We don't have the testimony for the defense experts. We don't have the medical records. We don't have the police report from the accident. The fact is, we don't have ANY information WHATSOEVER about this incident OTHER than what it written in that article. That being the case, I have no idea how Goober (or you) could possibly come to any conclusion that there was no malpractice here.

So, what is it then, despite knowing absolutely nothing about this particular case other than the statements in the article suggesting that the surgeon set the bones "improperly" leads you and Goober (and I gather, some of the other below you in this thread) to conclude that no malpractice occurred here?

As i said, I agree with you that a reaonable determination could be made that that, perhaps, the award is excessive. The nature of the injury seems evident from the article, and $15M seems like way too much. But, that is an entirely distinct issue from the one concerning whether there was a deviation from the standard of care. And there is NOTHING in the article to suggest that the doctor acted properly. IN fact, what LITTLE there is in the article regarding the standard of care suggests (if it suggests anything at all) that in fact some medical errors took place - as testified to by the medical experts, none of whom are a party to the case. You arguments that these injuries could have resulted from the crash itself are 100% valid. Makes perfect sense to me. But you don't know if the jury considered that and decided to reject it. You don't know whether the plaintiff's experts considered it, and in their professional opinion, determined that the pain was caused by the surgery and not the crash. You just don't know. You have no basis whatsoever to make the conclusion one way or the other other than what is in the article.

So, without knowing anything about the case other than what is printed in the article, I am left once again to wonder what induces in you (and your ilk) this knee-jerk reaction to assume, without any information whatsoever, that the doctor acted properly, despite a jury determining that he did not.

Wouldn't the intellectually honest answer have been something like "geez, this is bull****!!! $15M for a screwed up ankle??!!! That's way too much. I mean, come on, I have no idea if the doctor screwed or not, but even if he did, that's just too much for this sort of injury. As the article suggests, nobody would have dreamed of such a large award. No wonder insurance premiums in Philly are so high."

In any event, I have no idea whether real malpractice took place here. I'm not making a judgment one way or the other. My point throughout the this thread has been to merely rebut your presumption, despite what is written (and not written) in the article that no "serious" malpractice took place. We just don't know.

Don't you see what I'm getting at here. Maybe we could have an intelligent conversation about this.

Judd

I understand your point clearly. Of course my inclination will be to assume the doctor wasn't at fault! I'm looking at it through my medicine-colored glasses.

I would be willing to bet though, that if all the facts of the case were in front of us, it would look more like a case of a bad injury with an imperfect outcome than a case of $15M malpractice.

I realize too that it is possible the doctor tx her was a total quack, but I think that is highly unlikely for a variety of reasons.

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by Robz
15 mil? Another reason that there should be caps on pain and suffering awards.

and people wonder why insurance premiums are so high.....

Finally, an reasoned argument.

I agree that the award is excessive. But I'm inclined to think that much of this award is not based on pain and suffering, but on loss of earnings, which the cap on P&S would not prevent. The article suggests that she could not take a $150,000 job because fo the injury. Lost wage experts would calculate her likely working-life expectency, the index for wage inflations over that expectency and multiply the lost earnings by the percentage and the years left. My guess is that, perhaps, half of this award accounts for that (though I have no clue for sure - and I'm too lazy to do the math anyway).

As far as actual pain and suffering. We have no idea what that is based on. For all we know, the surgeon got up on the stand and gave that "I am God" speech from the movie Malice, which would be sure to turn almost any jury against him. Perhaps (again I have no clue) he was a real dingus to the patient after she started complaining about the surgery in the first place. Perhaps there's no good explanation at all. No clue. Many things can influence the jury to award a large sum of money for P & S.

This might be one of those cases where a cap would be a good thing. But realize (god, I hope you realize) that some awards for pain and suffering would be WAAAAY too low if a cap of $250,000 were passed. Easy example. Suppose, through a string of errors and malfeasance (we'll assume the malpratice is clear - remember, the proposed legislation caps awards because they are thought excessive, not because they presume that no actual malpractice takes place - the caps do not touch on the negligence issue) a woman must undergo a complete radical pelvic exteneration (is that the procedure) which leaves her without a uterus, bladder, and lower bowel. She must defacate into a bag for the rest of her life. Both she and her husband also sue for loss of consortium and companionship.

Assuming, again, that the negligence is clear, is a $250,000 award for P&S adaquate?

If you want to have an intelligent conversation about this, I'm all game.

Judd

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by edinOH
I understand your point clearly. Of course my inclination will be to assume the doctor wasn't at fault! I'm looking at it through my medicine-colored glasses.

I would be willing to bet though, that if all the facts of the case were in front of us, it would look more like a case of a bad injury with an imperfect outcome than a case of $15M malpractice.

I realize too that it is possible the doctor tx her was a total quack, but I think that is highly unlikely for a variety of reasons.

Fair enough. All I'm looking for is just a little introspection. That's all.

I agree. If we knew the facts, I'm also willing to bet that this was not a case of $15M malpractice. But we've already agreed that the award was excessive. Let's not connect the notion of negligence with the value of the injury. They are not related to each other.

Let me give you an example. Hand surgeon screws up (for whatever reason) and through an act of carelessless that lasts less than than half a second, cuts an important nerve in a patient's hand, and she has lost controlled use of her right index finger. Patient, who happens to be a waitress, gets $15M.

BULL****!!!! we yell. Award is WAAAAAAY too high.

Now imagine the patient was himself a Cardiothoracic surgeon. The award doesn't seem so excessive now, does it?

The malpractice was identical. The deviation from the standard of care was the same in both cases. What accounts for the differences in our opinions regarding the awards? It does NOT come down to the type of negligence. Rather, it comes down to the cost associated with the injury.

This is why I have trouble with you saying "$15M malpractice." The actual malpractice is the same. It's the cost of the injury that is relevant here.

So even though we agree the award in the ankle base was high, we should not make any assumptions regarding the severity of the actual malpractice. We just don't know.

Judd

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by edinOH


I realize too that it is possible the doctor tx her was a total quack, but I think that is highly unlikely for a variety of reasons. [/B]

Oh yes, this is a good point too. We don't know if this doctor's been sued 10 times before, whether he's lost his license one or more times, etc. etc. Many things we don't know could have played a role in this case. We have no basis to judge.

Judd

 

[Sessamoid]

Originally posted by juddson

Let me give you an example. Hand surgeon screws up (for whatever reason) and through an act of carelessless that lasts less than than half a second, cuts an important nerve in a patient's hand, and she has lost controlled use of her right index finger. Patient, who happens to be a waitress, gets $15M.

BULL****!!!! we yell. Award is WAAAAAAY too high.

Now imagine the patient was himself a Cardiothoracic surgeon. The award doesn't seem so excessive now, does it?

Doesn't seem overly excessive for a cardiothoracic surgeon, but still seems a little high. Say your average CT surgeon makes 400-700K per year (just guessing here as I have no CT surgeons in my family). If the guy is say 40 years old and has 25 years of work left in him, then 15M is in the ballpark for gross earnings, but the actuarial present value of those earnings is actually far, far less (I was an actuary in a previous career). Mind you, the CT surgeon's income is pretty much guaranteed.

Compare this to an aspiring model who supposedly was to get a 150K job from her sister (yeah, there's a reliable source for an estimate of her potential). Even being utterly drop-dead gorgeous, the chances of a girl making it as a model are probably on the order of one in several hundred thousand. The chances of become a top model drop by another couple factors of ten. The working life for a model is extremely short. Very few of them work much past the age of 30 (I know a couple). 15M is overkill for almost anybody but women in the Linda Evangelista and Kate Moss level.

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by Sessamoid
Doesn't seem overly excessive for a cardiothoracic surgeon, but still seems a little high. Say your average CT surgeon makes 400-700K per year (just guessing here as I have no CT surgeons in my family). If the guy is say 40 years old and has 25 years of work left in him, then 15M is in the ballpark for gross earnings, but the actuarial present value of those earnings is actually far, far less (I was an actuary in a previous career). Mind you, the CT surgeon's income is pretty much guaranteed.

Understand the time value of money issue, which brings the current value of a stream of payments in the future way down. But the stream is not constant either. I think they also factor in a wage growth estimate. Of course, the wages of CT surgeons are as likely to be less ten years from now as they are to greater.

I don't know.
Judd

 

[ny skindoc]

Do you know how often personal injury lawyers tell their clients to wear neck braces and "walk with canes' for bogus injuries? Its very common.Any good lawyer has a list of Rehab and Ortho doctors who will happily prescribe and say what is necessary to make a case.Of course there are legitimate injuries but more often than not they are highly exaggerated. A judgement of $15 million? Good Luck.. as your malpractice policy generally only covers 1 to 3 million.The rest comes out of your pocket.You would have to file for bankruptcy to protect some of your assests.

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by ny skindoc
Do you know how often personal injury lawyers tell their clients to wear neck braces and "walk with canes' for bogus injuries? Its very common.Any good lawyer has a list of Rehab and Ortho doctors who will happily prescribe and say what is necessary to make a case.Of course there are legitimate injuries but more often than not they are highly exaggerated. A judgement of $15 million? Good Luck.. as your malpractice policy generally only covers 1 to 3 million.The rest comes out of your pocket.You would have to file for bankruptcy to protect some of your assests.

You've seen way too many movies. This is unhealthy for you.

Judd

 

[ny skindoc]

I have not seen too many movies but I have seen too many people who have been to personal injury lawyers. This type of litigation is highly lucrative for lawyers -getting 30-40% of the award (after expenses).So there is much incentive to engage in questionable behavior.

 

[me109cito]

I am willing to bet this focker (o=u) is a lawyer or law student or someone who enjoys seeing docs get sued. Do me a favor and f*ck off. Do you know the joke about the comparison between a lawyer and a catfish? The former being a bottom-dwelling, scum sucker and the latter a fish? which one are you?

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by me109cito
I am willing to bet this focker (o=u) is a lawyer or law student or someone who enjoys seeing docs get sued. Do me a favor and f*ck off. Do you know the joke about the comparison between a lawyer and a catfish? The former being a bottom-dwelling, scum sucker and the latter a fish? which one are you?

This is very clever. Very grown-up. You don't think comments like that make you look like an idiot?

Judd

 

[Zeffer]

me109cito
I am willing to bet this focker (o=u) is a lawyer or law student or someone who enjoys seeing docs get sued. Do me a favor and f*ck off. Do you know the joke about the comparison between a lawyer and a catfish? The former being a bottom-dwelling, scum sucker and the latter a fish? which one are you?

If you want to challenge judd the least you could do is ascend to his level and use logic to challange his ideas. I believe what Judd is doing is calling you out to use logic rather than emotion to form the basis of your opinions. If you are in medicine then you know you need this skill.

My initial rxn to the post was the same as many to side with our own, but the reality of it is we have none of the facts. This does not mean that you can not side with the surgeon, but don't make unfounded statements of accusation.

 

[margaritaboy]

Judd,

I can't say that I have the time or inclination to read your very very long posts.

I can say I will be more inclined to read them when you are more than a premed student.

 

[DrQuinn]

Originally posted by Sessamoid
Compare this to an aspiring model who supposedly was to get a 150K job from her sister (yeah, there's a reliable source for an estimate of her potential). Even being utterly drop-dead gorgeous, the chances of a girl making it as a model are probably on the order of one in several hundred thousand. The chances of become a top model drop by another couple factors of ten. The working life for a model is extremely short. Very few of them work much past the age of 30 (I know a couple). 15M is overkill for almost anybody but women in the Linda Evangelista and Kate Moss level.

Unless she was planning on being in "Gimp-Ankle Illustrated," then her salary would be much higher.

Q, DO

 

[juddson]

Originally posted by margaritaboy
Judd,

I can't say that I have the time or inclination to read your very very long posts.

I can say I will be more inclined to read them when you are more than a premed student.

If you would read my posts in this thread, I think I've set out quite clearly why one need not be a physician to take the positions I am taking.

Your insistence that I be one suggests snobbery on your part, and little else.

Read what Zeffer said. BTW, thanks.

Judd