14 Comments

I wonder what the plaintiff’s attorney did when the juror collapsed?

When you are sick who do you want? A physician or a lawyer.

“the defendant doctors rushed over to help her”

If thy hadn’t, it’s likely that the doctors would have lost their licenses – I know where I live, doctors (and nurses, and anyone whose paramedic training is up to date) must give aid in an emergency (unless other help is already on the scene) or face severe penalties. Auto accidents are the most common situation, but one such as this would seem to fit as well.

So, for performing their legal duty, they are being penalized. How… common.

Mass. has a Good Samaritan law that insulates a physician from liability, as does New York and likely most (if not all) other states for helping out in such a situtation.

I would add that it is not only the defendant doctors who lose out by having to go through another trial, but so too Mr. Weis. He had no choice but to ask for a mistrial if he wants to have his action heard on the merits, as I noted in a blog entry on the case here.

And the lawyers lose out, and the judge and the jurors with time lost.

Sometimes, though, things happen in the courtroom that are beyond the control of the judge.

–Eric

The reason we are listing the doctor as the losing party is that A) the judge, etc, are being paid to do this – it’s their job (the taxpayers are the ones who lose on that one), and B) the plaintiff isn’t losing anything more because the suit is stupendously frivolous – the “injuries” are exactly the complications he was warned ahead of time happen in about 10-15% of cases (he can just be glad he didn’t die – about 1 in 200 do).

In response to Good Samaritan laws in the states that were mentioned. Each does not cover regestered professionals. In fact there are numerous cases where physicians, nurses and emts have faced suit when they have tried to help. The good thing is, most still will try to help anyway.

Yes, it is unfortunate that the doctors will have to go through the trial again, but I don’t think it could be considered unfair. However, there is no denying that some members are the jury would likely be biased by witnessing the doctors help the juror.

If the claim is frivolous, the defendants should have been granted summary judgment.

Assuming, however, that the case propoerly went to trial, the grant of a mistrial was probably justified under the circumstances. Unfortunate, but legally necessary.

the suit is stupendously frivolous – the “injuries” are exactly the complications he was warned ahead of time happen in about 10-15% of cases

As I understand it from the press coverage, the suit focuses on the failure to timely diagnose that a problem had occurred. That is not the same thing as causing the injury. With a timely diagnosis of a problem (I’m speaking generally) a far more serious injury can sometimes be avoided. I blogged on this subject before the mistrial had occurred: Medical Malpractice — Litigating the Surgical Error Case.

–Eric

In response to Good Samaritan laws in the states that were mentioned. Each does not cover regestered professionals.

This is wrong. The two states mentioned were New York and Mass.
Physicians have immunity in New York under Article 30 of the New York State Public Health Law
Physicians also have immunity in Mass for Good Samaritan acts.
You can find a list of Good Samaritan statutes at this link.

Interestingly, the Boston newspapers reported that one of the plaintiff witnesses had been Tom Brady, the Patriots quarterback, who told the jury how Charlie Weiss had relied on him for support; not that the plaintiff lawyers would ever try to influence a jury with celebrity testimony.

Just checked the wording of the good samaritan statute (links posted by Eric above).
“…shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment, where the person acts as an ordinarily reasonable, prudent person, or with regard to a health care professional, as a reasonably prudent and careful health care provider would have acted, under the same or similar circumstances. ”
As near as I can tell there is no special immunity here short of the ordinary definition of malpractice. Since the debate will revolve around what a ‘reasonable, prudent’ person would do, it is basically a question for a jury and a trial just like plain old malpractice. The statute does not even grant immunity for battery through providing unconsented care.

Good Samaritan laws sound good because they have a friendly title, but they offer no useful protection.

Gastric bypass surgery is the next great malpractice frontier.

Despite recitations (orally and in writing) of the surgical risks patients would rather have surgery than, say, eat a balanced diet or exercise. And the post surgical existence isn’t all fun and flowers either.

Some of the surgeons should use a little more common sense about who gets the surgery, especially patients with a high probability of being non-compliance. And now it is teens.

I can imagine the thought bubble over a juror’s head as he witnessed this debacle: “Does this mean that Tom Brady is NOT coming…” (a la Full Metal Jacket).

This trail illustrates the enormous costs that the tort system imposes upon the people being sued. these doctors get to spend their days sitting in a courtroom-instead of saving lives (which is what they were trained to do). The plaintiff was properly advised of the riskes he faced-and he chose to accept them. The sad thing is: he will never be “made whole”-medical science cannot do such a thing. lawyers forget this-no legal decision can undo a foolish decision.As for the juror who fell ill-can he sue the county 9for not having trained medical personnel on hand)? looks like a good lawsuit to me!