Guest guest Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 I've heard the opposite as well -- people suing because their loved ones were resuscitated, but came back with significant neurological deficits. Just goes to show that people sue for anything. What angers me the most is that judges already have the discretion to dismiss a frivolous case, yet rarely do so. Thus, we end up with tort reform that often discourages the filing of legitimate claims. -Wes Ogilvie Not the attorney filing these suits In a message dated 5/16/2007 10:48:38 PM Central Daylight Time, bbledsoe@... writes: I recently had a conversation with an attorney who does a lot of EMS work (and who is a paramedic). It is not one of the esteemed barristers on this list. He said that he is seeing more plaintiff's attorneys taking the position that failure to resuscitate a cardiac arrest victim is a tort. Stated another way, the plaintiffs' attorneys are stating that the standard of care is to resuscitate a patient-regardless of the ultimate outcome. Of course, there are physician and paramedic " hired guns " who will support the plaintiffs' position given the appropriate payment of legal tender. Has anybody else heard this outlandish scheme? BEB E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, Texas [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 16, 2007 Report Share Posted May 16, 2007 I recently had a conversation with an attorney who does a lot of EMS work (and who is a paramedic). It is not one of the esteemed barristers on this list. He said that he is seeing more plaintiff's attorneys taking the position that failure to resuscitate a cardiac arrest victim is a tort. Stated another way, the plaintiffs' attorneys are stating that the standard of care is to resuscitate a patient-regardless of the ultimate outcome. Of course, there are physician and paramedic " hired guns " who will support the plaintiffs' position given the appropriate payment of legal tender. Has anybody else heard this outlandish scheme? BEB E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Just proves that anyone with the filing fee can, and will, sue for anything. I agree that the judge should automatically dismiss. If Mama isn't back to how she was twenty years ago, and better than before the tobacco, etc, then someone will sue. How about this tort reform? Set up a panel of health care and legal reviewers that have to review the merits of all cases before going to court. If they throw out as frivilous, the plaintiff has to pay all costs for both sides and the paintiff's attorney is automatically found to have performed malpractice and may be sued. I know that is the pendulum swinging WAY the other direction, but I can dream :-) I do think there should be some disincentive for the " you win or you pay nothing " legal ads. > > > I've heard the opposite as well -- people suing because their loved ones > were resuscitated, but came back with significant neurological deficits. > > Just goes to show that people sue for anything. What angers me the most is > that judges already have the discretion to dismiss a frivolous case, yet > rarely do so. Thus, we end up with tort reform that often discourages the filing > of legitimate claims. > > -Wes Ogilvie > Not the attorney filing these suits > > > In a message dated 5/16/2007 10:48:38 PM Central Daylight Time, > bbledsoe@... writes: > > > > > I recently had a conversation with an attorney who does a lot of EMS work > (and who is a paramedic). It is not one of the esteemed barristers on this > list. He said that he is seeing more plaintiff's attorneys taking the > position that failure to resuscitate a cardiac arrest victim is a tort. > Stated another way, the plaintiffs' attorneys are stating that the standard > of care is to resuscitate a patient-regardless of the ultimate outcome. Of > course, there are physician and paramedic " hired guns " who will support the > plaintiffs' position given the appropriate payment of legal tender. Has > anybody else heard this outlandish scheme? > > BEB > > E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP > > Midlothian, Texas > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 I was under the impression that the standard of care is leaning toward non-rescusitation (in those circumstances where it obviously would be of no benefit) and has been for a couple of years. Is this not the case? I have not personally heard of this. " Bledsoe, DO " wrote: I recently had a conversation with an attorney who does a lot of EMS work (and who is a paramedic). It is not one of the esteemed barristers on this list. He said that he is seeing more plaintiff's attorneys taking the position that failure to resuscitate a cardiac arrest victim is a tort. Stated another way, the plaintiffs' attorneys are stating that the standard of care is to resuscitate a patient-regardless of the ultimate outcome. Of course, there are physician and paramedic " hired guns " who will support the plaintiffs' position given the appropriate payment of legal tender. Has anybody else heard this outlandish scheme? BEB E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP Midlothian, Texas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 17, 2007 Report Share Posted May 17, 2007 Dr. : My only concern with eliminating contingency fee lawsuits is the huge expense of filing suit, particularly in a medical malpractice case where you often have to have expert witness review before even determining whether a suit can be filed. If you eliminate the contingency fee, you've basically shut the courthhouse doors to all but the very wealthy. -Wes Ogilvie Re: Medical/Legal Conundrum Just proves that anyone with the filing fee can, and will, sue for anything. I agree that the judge should automatically dismiss. If Mama isn't back to how she was twenty years ago, and better than before the tobacco, etc, then someone will sue. How about this tort reform? Set up a panel of health care and legal reviewers that have to review the merits of all cases before going to court. If they throw out as frivilous, the plaintiff has to pay all costs for both sides and the paintiff's attorney is automatically found to have performed malpractice and may be sued. I know that is the pendulum swinging WAY the other direction, but I can dream :-) I do think there should be some disincentive for the " you win or you pay nothing " legal ads. > > > I've heard the opposite as well -- people suing because their loved ones > were resuscitated, but came back with significant neurological deficits. > > Just goes to show that people sue for anything. What angers me the most is > that judges already have the discretion to dismiss a frivolous case, yet > rarely do so. Thus, we end up with tort reform that often discourages the filing > of legitimate claims. > > -Wes Ogilvie > Not the attorney filing these suits > > > In a message dated 5/16/2007 10:48:38 PM Central Daylight Time, > bbledsoe@... writes: > > > > > I recently had a conversation with an attorney who does a lot of EMS work > (and who is a paramedic). It is not one of the esteemed barristers on this > list. He said that he is seeing more plaintiff's attorneys taking the > position that failure to resuscitate a cardiac arrest victim is a tort. > Stated another way, the plaintiffs' attorneys are stating that the standard > of care is to resuscitate a patient-regardless of the ultimate outcome. Of > course, there are physician and paramedic " hired guns " who will support the > plaintiffs' position given the appropriate payment of legal tender. Has > anybody else heard this outlandish scheme? > > BEB > > E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP > > Midlothian, Texas > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 I apologize for the delayed reply. Unfortunately, the legal system has become a form of lottery or game show for many in our society. A way of taking a free spin of the wheel and maybe I'll get the big prize, but at least I can get a small reward. My feeling is that the lawyers themselves have to be the ones to change this problem. No small task, " OK, we are going to stop naming EVERYONE in the building that day, no more nuisance suits, and oh yeah, we are all gonna lose a lot of our income. " How do we return society to a sense of personal responsibilty? I get tired of seeing people coming in complaining that they can't afford their medicine for BP, CHF, heart, DM, etc but have the latest cell phone, smoke and drink, and can afford illicit drugs. Heaven help the doctor that says they need to lose weight or stop some vice...they can get sued for slander, etc. If the outcome is not good, then a lawsuit may be filed for no reason except to hope to get a payout to make it go away. Absolutely, we should have a way for those truly injured in a grossly negligent manner to be recompensated for the loss, etc. The problem stems from the likes of " The Texas Hammer " , " The Strongarm " , etc. Why cast a net trying to get a few multi-million dollar cases and encouraging a confrontational system? The perception is that any outcome less than the six million dollar man should get a big lawsuit payment. I have only had one suit that I was named in. The target was the hospital and the entire suit was dropped, but only after the hospital made a payment to make it go away. This was a suit that was filed after the statute of limitations had run out! Bottom line in my opinion, He who has the gold makes the rules. Look who the rule (law) makers are...lawyers. I really would like to know how we can encourage personal responsibility. > > > > > > I've heard the opposite as well -- people suing because their loved ones > > were resuscitated, but came back with significant neurological deficits. > > > > Just goes to show that people sue for anything. What angers me the most is > > that judges already have the discretion to dismiss a frivolous case, yet > > rarely do so. Thus, we end up with tort reform that often discourages the filing > > of legitimate claims. > > > > -Wes Ogilvie > > Not the attorney filing these suits > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2007 Report Share Posted May 19, 2007 Let's not forget the BIG SCREEN TV and FURNITURE they pay for each week at the " RENT TO OWN " establishments. phillipsdo wrote: I apologize for the delayed reply. Unfortunately, the legal system has become a form of lottery or game show for many in our society. A way of taking a free spin of the wheel and maybe I'll get the big prize, but at least I can get a small reward. My feeling is that the lawyers themselves have to be the ones to change this problem. No small task, " OK, we are going to stop naming EVERYONE in the building that day, no more nuisance suits, and oh yeah, we are all gonna lose a lot of our income. " How do we return society to a sense of personal responsibilty? I get tired of seeing people coming in complaining that they can't afford their medicine for BP, CHF, heart, DM, etc but have the latest cell phone, smoke and drink, and can afford illicit drugs. Heaven help the doctor that says they need to lose weight or stop some vice...they can get sued for slander, etc. If the outcome is not good, then a lawsuit may be filed for no reason except to hope to get a payout to make it go away. Absolutely, we should have a way for those truly injured in a grossly negligent manner to be recompensated for the loss, etc. The problem stems from the likes of " The Texas Hammer " , " The Strongarm " , etc. Why cast a net trying to get a few multi-million dollar cases and encouraging a confrontational system? The perception is that any outcome less than the six million dollar man should get a big lawsuit payment. I have only had one suit that I was named in. The target was the hospital and the entire suit was dropped, but only after the hospital made a payment to make it go away. This was a suit that was filed after the statute of limitations had run out! Bottom line in my opinion, He who has the gold makes the rules. Look who the rule (law) makers are...lawyers. I really would like to know how we can encourage personal responsibility. > > > > > > I've heard the opposite as well -- people suing because their loved ones > > were resuscitated, but came back with significant neurological deficits. > > > > Just goes to show that people sue for anything. What angers me the most is > > that judges already have the discretion to dismiss a frivolous case, yet > > rarely do so. Thus, we end up with tort reform that often discourages the filing > > of legitimate claims. > > > > -Wes Ogilvie > > Not the attorney filing these suits > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.