Comments for Overlawyered

Comment on “In case you weren’t sure how to use a staircase” by Richard A Harrison

Richard A Harrison — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:08:54 +0000

Still my favorite wacky warning ever: A label on a candle for sale in a local Target store said “To extinguish candle, blow out flame.”

Think about that. And what do you suppose the universe of people might be that would both (a) comprehend the word “extinguish” and simultaneously (b) not know how to put out a candle?

Comment on “Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service” by Dirk D

Dirk D — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:29:35 +0000

Roy,

There was no ruling, it was a settlement.

Comment on Alan Keyes sues Barack Obama by Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:11:27 +0000

No problem. What format do you want that in? I’ll run it through the scanner tonight. What’s the big deal?

Comment on “In case you weren’t sure how to use a staircase” by Frank

Frank — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:07:11 +0000

These signs are not that unusual and this ‘For Your Safety’ instruction is actually good advice which may prevent some injuries if heeded.

Two drunks are staggering along railroad tracks.
One complains “Boy, these steps are steep.”
The other replies “It’s not the steep steps, it’s the low handrails.”

Comment on Alan Keyes sues Barack Obama by david

david — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:06:01 +0000

Anonymous: There is a legal set of requirements to hold the office of president: a natural born citizen, live in the US for the last 14 years and be over 35. All candidates are REQUIRED to be natural born-a birth certificate could resolve this issue.

Say you get pulled over by the police and don’t produce a driver’s license. You go to the station, call you lawyer. Your attorney asks you if you are in possession of a driver’s license. You say yes. Your attorney says, “Produce it so we can all go home.”

It would seem running for president of the US warrants a higher level of compliance with cooperation.

Comment on “Dr. Megaworkup” by B.RAD

B.RAD — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:01:44 +0000

Selfishness has nothing to do with it Ron. We live in a litigation driven society. How are ladder manufacturers selfish because they must paste 10 warning labels on their product? Why are small products like toys put in packages that cost more than the product itself, packaged so tightly that you need an ax and a crowbar to open, hoping you won’t slice a finger? It’s CYA. Does the 87 year old need that $2000 MRI for chronic knee pain, sometimes getting 2 scans within a year, when a $50 plain xray will likely disclose the cause of the pain? Do you think this happens in Europe? This is why our health care system is going to hell in a hand basket.

Docs resent the current med mal system because of the randomness of it. It’s a crapshoot. There are cases that are truly malpractice but will not be taken up because of their low potential payout. And there are cases of questionable merit that will be pursued with a vengeance because of the large potential payout. This is what “fighting for the little guy” is all about? And of course emotion is brought into play, sometimes ignoring the facts of the case. As you know, and as WhiteCoat has pointed out, you can ALWAYS find an expert that will say anything. For Docs, all it takes is ONE case, just one, that could ruin a career.

Comment on “Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service” by tim

tim — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:53:56 +0000

I agree with psaunders and royb. From a practical standpoint - why would someone who is gay use a service in which that no gay person is on to find a date? There are plenty of sites that cater to the gay crowd (heck - met my partner through one)… this is just plain silly…

Comment on Dating service sued for turning away married man by “Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service”

“Suit forces eHarmony to offer gay dating service” — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:50:55 +0000

[...] 19, FoxNews.com)(via Friedersdorf, see also Mataconis). Earlier coverage: Jun. 1 and Jun. 8, 2007; Mar. 26, 2006 (married man wants listing). More: lawyer in parallel California suit against eHarmony says it [...]

Comment on “Dr. Megaworkup” by William Nuesslein

William Nuesslein — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:35:22 +0000

In the early seventies my son was shoved by a bully and hit his head against a wall. There was some bleeding, and the school sent him off to the ER. A little clean water and a bandage was all that was required; some antibiotic perhaps. Yet several x-rays were taken. Defensive medicine in my son’s case was long ago and expensive. (My son was OK!)

What drives the defensive/excessive medicine? Second guessing, especially when there is an adverse outcome, must have some effect. The lack of cost/benefit calculation. I certainly would have declined the x-rays in the case of the minor injury of my son. There was nothing to justify their cost. The humane tendency to show that one is an excellent doctor.

Since claims of malpractice are mostly wrong, the plaintiff bar does not help matters. “Perhaps that extra test saved a life” is the claim, but the lawyer who makes the claim can base it only on conjecture, as there is almost never a suit when treatment is effective.

Comment on “Dr. Megaworkup” by Jim Collins

Jim Collins — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:25:56 +0000

Thanks,that’s kind of what I thought Whitecoat. What I thought ironic was that they told me not to worry about the costs of the test, they were covered by my insurance. I understand their concerns, even though I think it is a load of BS. I used to have to do something similiar when I worked on small planes. It didn’t matter if I were changing the oil or replacing the engine, I did a complete inspection everytime I touched a plane. If I just changed the oil and two days later the wing fell off I was sure that I would be talking to a lawyer soon. If my license number was in that log book I was in the lawsuit.