The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 14, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, January 5, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, January 1, 2016
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 29, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, December 19, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, December 15, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, December 11, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, December 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, December 3, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Friday, November 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 21, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, November 17, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 12, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, November 9, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Saturday, November 7, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Thursday, November 5, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2015
The correspondence above was posted on Monday, October 26, 2015
1,745 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 1601 – 1745 of 1745harr the hypocritical fabricator:
You have made it difficult, if not impossible, for crystal to get legal representation,in the unlikely event she gets a new trial. Again, the agenda in your latest letter, is that you get access to De. Nichols' personnel records for your own nefarious purposes. No attorney assigned to represent crystal will want to work with you under those circumstances. You have no right to view anyone's confidential personnel records. No judge will force any attorney to cooperate with you in your attempt to access those records.
How about you work it this way. Yu retain an attorney, who is willing to involve you in her defense and pay homout of your own pocket. Maybe kenny hissy fit would be willing to financially assist you in paying the attorney's fees.
However that would never happen. Both you and kenny have shown you are unwilling to, as the cliche goes, put money where your big mouths are.
Sid:
You have 349 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
In the broken U.S. Justice System. money=justice. "They have no bread? Let them eat cake"
kenhyderal said...
In the broken U.S. Justice System. money=justice. 'They have no bread? Let them eat cake'"
Another iteration of kenny hissy fit saying, give my favorite murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes.
Kenny--
Any chance you can use a few new quotes? You and Ubes drone on and on with the same repetitive, unoriginal crap.
more for harr the hypocritical fabricator:
harr wants access to Dr. Nichols' personnel records so he can question Dr. Nichols' competence.
There are issues in harr's history which call into question harr's own competence as a physician. harr will not discuss those issues, why he was never accepted into residency training, why he never achieved medical specialty board certification, why he retired from medicine after a brief career of 17 years.
harr says those issues are irrelevant.
Which adds up to another example of harrian hypocrisy.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Sid:
You have 349 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Abe, I appreciate the update on the countdown. My goal will be readily achieved long before then. Have been working extremely hard the past couple of days, taking a brief break to support Defense attorney Christine Mumma who is truly an inspiration. She has been responsible for the exoneration of many innocents wrongly incarcerated... which is part of the reason she had been targeted by the State Bar. Others with the integrity and independence to put justice first and as a result have been harassed by the State Bar includes attorney Cassandra Stubbs, and Mike Nifong.
Anyway, should have Part One of the next sharlog completed by week's end... it's extremely long, and I have been putting a lot of work into it. And, of course, letter writing.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
more for harr the hypocritical fabricator:
harr wants access to Dr. Nichols' personnel records so he can question Dr. Nichols' competence.
There are issues in harr's history which call into question harr's own competence as a physician. harr will not discuss those issues, why he was never accepted into residency training, why he never achieved medical specialty board certification, why he retired from medicine after a brief career of 17 years.
harr says those issues are irrelevant.
Which adds up to another example of harrian hypocrisy.
WRONG-O!!
If you will recollect, Judge Ridgeway went through Dr. Nichols' personnel file and deemed that an 18-page document was relevant to Mangum's case. However, to keep Ms. Mangum from seeing the report, he ordered that it was for "attorney eyes only" and he sealed the entire file.
I believe that Mangum should have the opportunity to see that pertinent 18-page report. Nothing sinister in that... now is there?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
harr the hypocritical fabricator:
You have made it difficult, if not impossible, for crystal to get legal representation,in the unlikely event she gets a new trial. Again, the agenda in your latest letter, is that you get access to De. Nichols' personnel records for your own nefarious purposes. No attorney assigned to represent crystal will want to work with you under those circumstances. You have no right to view anyone's confidential personnel records. No judge will force any attorney to cooperate with you in your attempt to access those records.
How about you work it this way. Yu retain an attorney, who is willing to involve you in her defense and pay homout of your own pocket. Maybe kenny hissy fit would be willing to financially assist you in paying the attorney's fees.
However that would never happen. Both you and kenny have shown you are unwilling to, as the cliche goes, put money where your big mouths are.
Why should I pay an attorney who would gobble up my money while at the same time selling out Crystal Mangum? Been there, done that. Most attorneys are avaricious... I am seeking the rare one who is altruistic.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Abe, I appreciate the update on the countdown. My goal will be readily achieved long before then."
Just like your goal that mangum would never go to trial.
"Have been working extremely hard the past couple of days, taking a brief break to support Defense attorney Christine Mumma who is truly an inspiration. She has been responsible for the exoneration of many innocents wrongly incarcerated..."
Which means that crystal mangum would not benefit from her representation.
"which is part of the reason she had been targeted by the State Bar."
No it isn't.
"Others with the integrity and independence to put justice first and as a result have been harassed by the State Bar includes attorney Cassandra Stubbs, and Mike Nifong."
Except corrupt nifong who made multiple public inflammatory guilt presuming statements about members of the Lacrosse team, who had indicted three innocent men, who used the results of a rigged lineup to indict those innocent men, who concealed exculpatory evidence from those innocent men is someone who put injustice and his personal interest above justice. harr the hypocritical fabricator has never been able to distinguish his guilt presuming fantaseis from reality.
"Anyway, should have Part One of the next sharlog completed by week's end... it's extremely long, and I have been putting a lot of work into it. And, of course, letter writing."
Which it will be a long compilation of distortions and fabrications.
guiowen said...
Kenny, as usual, fantasizes. Medical experts, he dreams, would just come out of the woodwork. They would all testify in Crystal's favor!
Kenny, first find an expert. Find out what the expert would say. Then maybe - just maybe - you could hope for a new trial.
gui, mon ami,
Medical experts, or even anyone with a developed medical background, would all agree with me after reviewing the medical records. And, they would know that Crystal Mangum's stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's death... there being no nexus between the stab wound to his torso and his brain-death.
No one wants to testify because they feel the risks of inflaming Duke University Hospital and the P-T-Bs far outweigh the benefits of rectifying an injustice against an African American media-produced pariah. To speak out on Mangum's behalf would gain the medical expert nothing but pain both personally and professionally from those vindictives with privilege and power.
Nifong Supporter said...
"If you will recollect, Judge Ridgeway went through Dr. Nichols' personnel file and deemed that an 18-page document was relevant to Mangum's case. However, to keep Ms. Mangum from seeing the report, he ordered that it was for "attorney eyes only" and he sealed the entire file."
Which should give you a clue that what was in the report would not have helped crystal's defense and that he did not want to risk having crystal release the information to you. Certainly her attorney did not make an issue of it at trial. You will claim, as is your wont, that the attorney was a turncoat, which is how you describe any attorney who does not wish to cooperate with an incompetent, megalomaniacal hypocrite like you.
"I believe that Mangum should have the opportunity to see that pertinent 18-page report. Nothing sinister in that... now is there?"
No. You believe that you ought to have access to the report because your agenda is to distort what is in the report and to trash Dr. Nichols. There is plenty sinister in that. Unfortunately for you, it is easy to see through your incompetent machinations.
Blogger Nifong Supporter said...
"Medical experts, or even anyone with a developed medical background, would all agree with me after reviewing the medical records. And, they would know that Crystal Mangum's stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's death... there being no nexus between the stab wound to his torso and his brain-death."
Since you are but the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, you are no medical expert and are incompetent to make that statement. Two medical experts did review the record and concluded that Reginald Daye died from complications of the stab wound. No other medical experts have weighed on to support your delusional interpretation.
"No one wants to testify because they feel the risks of inflaming Duke University Hospital and the P-T-Bs far outweigh the benefits of rectifying an injustice against an African American media-produced pariah."
Which is yet another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator. No medical experts will support your view because your view is just plain wrong and motivated by your belief that your favorite murderess/false accuser should get a pass for her crimes, which means her conviction was not an injustice but justice.
"To speak out on Mangum's behalf would gain the medical expert nothing but pain both personally and professionally from those vindictives with privilege and power."
Those "vindictives with privilege and power" are a figment of your megalomaniacally deluded imagination and, hence, another fabrication by harr the hypocritical fabricator.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Why should I pay an attorney who would gobble up my money while at the same time selling out Crystal Mangum? Been there, done that. Most attorneys are avaricious... I am seeking the rare one who is altruistic."
which is another iteration of harr the hypocritical fabricator saying, I will not put my money where my mouth is.
Also, harr the hypocritical fabricator admits that no attorney would agree to represent crystal if that attorney were compelled to defer to an incompetent megalomaniac like harr, and allow harr to make crucial decisions in the case.
harr the hypocritical fabricator:
Are you still so conceitedly dense that you refuse to realize you shabby motivation is obvious?
The obvious answer is yes you are.
Nifong Supporter said...
"Medical experts, or even anyone with a developed medical background, would all agree with me after reviewing the medical records. And, they would know that Crystal Mangum's stab wound had nothing to do with Daye's death... there being no nexus between the stab wound to his torso and his brain-death."
How many medical experts do you know?
That is something else which is obvious.
None.
If you knew any real medical experts, if you did actually have them revies crystal's case, you would not be spouting off your delusions.
Or, maybe, you did run this by some genuine medical experts who all told you, Reginald Daye died of complications from the stab wound crystal inflicted.
Which explains your fabrication that medical experts will not testify for crystal because they fear Duke.
Which means, if Duke is so fearsome, why did they settle with the innocent Lacrosse players rather than defend against them in court?
The only explanation I can recall you coming up with is that one of their drfrnse attorneys assured Duke that their insurance carrier would pay off the settlement amount for them.
Can you see how totally incompetent you are?
Probably not.
Anonymous said: "Any chance you can use a few new quotes"........... Not until Anonymous posters, either naively or disingenuously quit suggesting that those of us who want justice served in Crystal's case go out and pay high profile defence attorneys like Mark Geragos, Mark O'Mara, Gloria Allred, F Lee Bailey etc. This quote is an apt response to their ignorance or if they are being perverse to their sarcasm. Don't they believe that the poor deserve justice?
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: "Any chance you can use a few new quotes"........... Not until Anonymous posters, either naively or disingenuously quit suggesting that those of us who want justice served in Crystal's case go out and pay high profile defence attorneys like Mark Geragos, Mark O'Mara, Gloria Allred, F Lee Bailey etc."
First, no one is suggesting you hire any of those attorneys. What is being suggested is that if you are serious about your interest in crystal, you would retain an attorney to represent her. You are not willing to do that. So your interest in her is not sincere if it actually costs you something. You are only interested in running off your mouth.
Second, you run your mouth not because you want justice served in crystal's case. You want injustice served. Justice WAS served when she was convicted of the murder of Reginald Daye. You want to get her a pass for the murder of Reginald Daye.
"This quote is an apt response to their ignorance or if they are being perverse to their sarcasm. Don't they believe that the poor deserve justice?"
Yes, the poor deserve justice. However getting a murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes is not justice.
Kenny, you and Ubes deserve each other.
Anonymous said: "First, no one is suggesting you hire any of those attorneys. What is being suggested is that if you are serious about your interest in crystal, you would retain an attorney to represent her. You are not willing to do that".....................The four Court appointed Attorneys hardly gave Crystal the time of day. Indigent defendants deserve a vigorous defense. If they, or their friends and Families are also without resources, they should not have to beg for funds, from the public, as the only way to receive what is due them by Law. But, we all know the U.S. Justice System, as far as the poor and minorities, is concerned is completely broken. With Dr. Harr having done all the investigative ground work as long as a Court appointed Attorney would have Crystal's best interest at heart and be willing to bring Dr. Harr's expertise about all the circumstances of the case into their defense, any competent Lawyer who will not put the interest of Duke ahead of Crystal's should be able to get her exonerated.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Kenny, you and Ubes deserve each other".......................... Me and Ubes? Can you elaborate. I thought Ubes, like most of you, was unsympathetic to Crystal.
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: 'First, no one is suggesting you hire any of those attorneys. What is being suggested is that if you are serious about your interest in crystal, you would retain an attorney to represent her. You are not willing to do that'.....................The four Court appointed Attorneys hardly gave Crystal the time of day."
If you really believed that, you would be working to get an attorney for her who is not court appointed. You are not.
"Indigent defendants deserve a vigorous defense. If they, or their friends and Families are also without resources, they should not have to beg for funds, from the public, as the only way to receive what is due them by Law. But, we all know the U.S. Justice System, as far as the poor and minorities, is concerned is completely broken."
The US Justice system is no where near perfect, as was evidenced when oorrupt nifong tried to get away with convicting innocent men whom crystal falesly accused of raping crystal. Trying to get crystal a pass for her false accusations and a pass for murdering Reginald Daye will not fix it. Plus, that innocent white men falsely accused of crimes against black people and are then not convicted, is not evidence of brokenness. That a race baiter like Al Sharpton evades accountability for trying to do just that is.
"With Dr. Harr having done all the investigative ground work"
harr the hypocritical fabricator has investigated nothing. He has just distorted facts.
"as long as a Court appointed Attorney would have Crystal's best interest at heart and be willing to bring Dr. Harr's expertise"
harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, has no expertise.
"about all the circumstances of the case into their defense"
Having an agenda based on his crusade to get crystal a pass for her crimes means he has no expertise about "about all the circumstances of the case".
"any competent Lawyer who will not put the interest of Duke ahead of Crystal's should be able to get her exonerated."
Any competent and ethical lawyer would not put harr the hypocritical fabricator and his desire to trash Dr. Nichols above the interest of justice. Getting a murderess/false accuser a pass for her crimes is not in the interest of justice.
kenny hissy fit:
In spite of all your ranting and raving, the bottom line is, you complain about crystal's lack of legal representation(conveniently ignoring her refusal to cooperate with her court appointed attorneys) you are not willing to actually do anything to help her. You are primarily interested in mouthing off.
Sid:
You have 348 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
kenhyderal said...
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Kenny, you and Ubes deserve each other.......................... Me and Ubes? Can you elaborate. I thought Ubes, like most of you, was unsympathetic to Crystal.
I will let you figure it out, Kenny. You pride yourself on being such a smart fellow.
Anonymous said: " you are not willing to actually do anything to help her"................... Happy Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day. What you imply is that I start a campaign to raise enough money to buy justice. Your attitude reinforces my contention that in the U.S.-- justice=money. Instead, in a system based on ethics, an indigent defendant would receive a dedicated Defense. And just as the law dictates, it would be provided to them. Instead of going along with the present injustice, saying, "that's just the way it is", I choose to "rant" against this corruption hoping to see reform. America never has lived up to it's ideals.
Kenny, Is the word "defence" or "defense?" Are you a Canadian or not?
Anonymous-Anonymous said: "I will let you figure it out, Kenny. You pride yourself on being such a smart fellow"............................ I remain nonplussed.
Busted again by the "Grammar Policeman"
Kenny,
I asked you a couple of years ago, and you didn't answer. How does the Canadian system provide legal representation for indigent defendants? If the court appoints counsel (as in the US), how does the Canadian system ensure that the appointed counsel provides the aggressive representation (that you claim the US system doesn't provide)? Is it simply that Canadian lawyers are not motivated by money and US lawyers are?
Yeah. In the U.S. the poor do not get Justice nor do they get universal single payer health care.
Kenny,
You didn't answer my question. Instead you merely master debated.
The first and only word in sentence 1
kenhyderal said...
"What you imply is that I start a campaign to raise enough money to buy justice."
If you did really care about crystal, what you would exactly do is raise money tohelp her meet her legal expenses, incurred because she murdered Reginald Daye.
"Your attitude reinforces my contention that in the U.S.-- justice=money. Instead, in a system based on ethics, an indigent defendant would receive a dedicated Defense."
Your response reinforces that you do not really care abouy crystal. You care only about running your mouth.
Kenny,
The word "Yeah" does not answer a question that begins "How." You are master debating (i.e., providing only your conclusion without an explanation). Master debating is not compelling.
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous-Anonymous said: 'I will let you figure it out, Kenny. You pride yourself on being such a smart fellow'............................ I remain nonplussed."
You also remain ttally ignorant and totally incompetent regarding matters legal and medical.
Correction of typo:
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous-Anonymous said: 'I will let you figure it out, Kenny. You pride yourself on being such a smart fellow'............................ I remain nonplussed."
You also remain totally ignorant and totally incompetent regarding matters legal and medical.
kenhyderal said...
"And just as the law dictates, it would be provided to them. Instead of going along with the present injustice, saying, 'that's just the way it is'"
Unfortunately, that ws not the way it was for crystal. She was provided with legal representation. She would not cooperate with her court appointed attorneys. Instead she chose to cooperate with harr the hypocritical fabricator, chose to believe him when he told her the state wuld never take her to tril.
That she screwed up her legal representtion does not add up to injustice.
That she was convicted does not add up to injustice.
Anonymous said: "Is it simply that Canadian lawyers are not motivated by money and US lawyers are?"...................... My response is Yeah. How they do it is by their more ethical and less greedy behavior. This is assisted by the strong reinforcement of their professional associations and by fair compensation from the Government
Anonymous said: "She was provided with legal representation"................... For months on end they didn't even go to see her as is typical with poorly compensated court appointed attorneys
Kenny,
I thank your for finally answering my question. An answer that is not limited to master debating can be much more informative. I have a few follow up questions.
1. Can you provide data regarding the compensation of court appointed defense counsel in Canada and compare it with the compensation provided in North Carolina (we can use the amount paid to Meier as a data point)?
2. Can you provide information as to the "strong reinforcement of their professional associations" can contrast that with the NC associations?
3. Your blanket statement regarding the "more ethical and less greedy behavior" of Canadian lawyers compared with American lawyers seems overly generalized. How do you explain the pro bono work done by many US lawyers and the decision by other US lawyers to work for legal services organizations rather than in private practice? Some of those lawyers are very good lawyers.
kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous said: 'She was provided with legal representation'................... For months on end they didn't even go to see her as is typical with poorly compensated court appointed attorneys"
Who told you that? Probably not crystal as she was in NC while you were in Bhrain or wherever.
or harr the hypocritical fabricator?
Neither crystal nor harr are exactly credible. In the Duke rape Hoax, crystal's story was yes I was raped, no I wasn't raped, yes I was raped, no I wasn't raped, and thenshe settled on, yes I was raped. Not an example of a credible rape allegtion.
kenny:
In the US the poor receive free medical treatment (and did so prior to the ACA). We just don't use the failed, single payer method to provide it.
Mangum received extremely competent representation from multiple attorneys. She chose to disregard their advice. That's hardly a failure of the legal system.
Notwithstanding Sid's claims to the contrary, the charges against Mangum were serious and the State's case against her was strong. The case called out for competent, professional representation, which Mangum eschewed in favor of pursuing Sid's ill-conceived pipe dreams. Sid was way in over his head and he did a grave disservice to Mangum by giving her incompetent advice. In short, Mangum is a victim of her own unlawful conduct exascerbated by her exceedingly poor judgment in not heeding the advice of competent legal professionals assigned (at no cost to her) to assist her. The outcome of her case was neither surprising nor an injustice. Now she has to pay the price for her wrongdoings.
No sausage for you.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/2011/04/19/ontario_judges_can_set_lawyers_fees.html http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/legalservices/downloads/sclaid/indigentdefense/compensationratesnoncapital1999_narrative.authcheckdam.pdf
Abe said: In the US the poor receive free medical treatment (and did so prior to the ACA). We just don't use the failed, single payer method to provide it"................................ yeah if they show up at a Emergency Department. Even with ACA millions still uninsured. In no other advanced country. More spent per capita millions uncovered poorer outcomes then other developed countries. A disgrace.
kenny:
Actually, people from around the world flock to the US for medical treatment. The quality of treatment, service and wait times here are the best in the world. Our medical care in the USA is the absolute best in the world. That is why it is so expensive.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Kenny,
Thanks for your links. Apparently, judges set compensation for court appointed counsel in both Ontario and North Carolina. Thank you for focusing on the similarities.
"North Carolina
The rates paid to court-appointed counsel are completely at the discretion of the judges. Some pay hourly rates, some pay flat rates. There is no per case maximum."
Apparently not all Canadians share your belief that effective legal counsel is available to all. Money seems to be important north of the border as well.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/canadas-drowning-in-a-procedural-legal-swamp/article622369/
http://yourlegalrights.on.ca/common-question/what-are-my-options-if-i-cant-afford-lawyer
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/bob-tarantino-the-cost-of-legal-self-defence-in-canada-300000
I want to thank you for working all night. You posted the results of your tireless research at about 5am Dubai time. Thank you again for going beyond master debating and showcasing your Googling skills once again.
Anonymous said...
"Kenny,
I want to thank you for working all night. You posted the results of your tireless research at about 5am Dubai time. Thank you again for going beyond master debating and showcasing your Googling skills once again."
Kenny will be the first to tell you that justice never sleeps.
The night life ain't a good life but it's my life
Abe said: "Actually, people from around the world flock to the US for medical treatment. The quality of treatment, service and wait times here are the best in the world. Our medical care in the USA is the absolute best in the world. That is why it is so expensive".........................Only the 1% who can afford it eg. the super wealthy Canadian who says, "why should I wait in line while a homeless person gets his elective surgery first". I'll just go south and pay the 20 grand. Care in Canada is every bit as modern and advanced as in the U.S. in all provinces. One reason for the exorbitant costs there are obscene profits by predator Insurance Companies. Ones who love collecting premiums but hate paying claims. Find ways to deny a claim anyway you can. No one in Canada has to declare bankruptcy because of medical bills
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2009/09/bankruptcy-comparing-ourselves-with-our-neighbor-to-the-north/26591/
In North Carolina, there are two types of indigent defense counsel. The first, who handle most of the cases, are full-time employees of the State of North Carolina.They are paid a salary that is equal to what is paid to an Assistant District Attorney. Public Defender districts conform to the judicial districts which are also the same as the prosecutorial districts.
There is a second and much smaller source of indigent defense counsel in North Carolina. Those are assigned counsel. These lawyers are not state employees, but instead they evidence a willingness to accept assignment to cases. They do this by signing up with Indigent Defense Services (IDS) which is the state agency that handles these matters. IDS maintains the list of counsel willing to take assignments and then rotates cases among those counsel within the various Public Defender Districts. To a certain extent, IDS picks which assigned counsel is best able to handle certain non-capital matters. That is the more experienced attorneys are assigned to the more complex cases. There is a separate list for capital assigned counsel. In non-capital cases, the NC Legislature gives IDS a budget to work with. For the most part, IDS pays non-capital attorneys $75/hour to handle cases.
In theory, judges are free to pick any lawyer they want to assign cases to, but they have no power of mandate and no budget from which to pay those lawyers. In practice, the judges just leave the whole issue up to IDS to handle as they do have budget. This removes the judges from playing favorites with compensation and assignment.
North Carolina's system is reasonably fair. The pay for employee public defenders is equal to ADAs, so there is no career damage by being a public defender over a ADA. The promotion steps are the same, so again, no career damage. The District Public Defender is hired by IDS, not elected. So that may be a benefit or detriment, career wise. That just depends on the individual's career objectives. If you want a career in politics beyond being a DA, or District Public Defender, then being a DA is somewhat preferable. That said, I know of one PD who has been elected to the Superior Court, I know of many who have been elected to the District Court and I am working on one's campaign this year for the District Court.
If there is a negative to the NC system it is with assigned counsel. The Legislature really does not like the additional appropriation needed for assigned counsel. From time to time, they have cut the appropriation leaving the bar and IDS to scramble for funds/attorneys to take assigned cases.
Walt-in-Durham
One of the reasons health care in the United States is much more expensive is the huge amount of medical research carried out in the United States. This is evidenced by the fact that the United States has won more Nobel prizes in medicine and physiology than any other country. Compare this with Canada. In 1923, two Canadians won the prize for their work in developing insulin. Since then, however, the only Canadians to win this prize have received it for work performed in the United States.
The other reason medical work in the USA is so expensive is the large insurance premiums that physicians have to pay because of the huge malpractice awards that are frequently seen here. I will say I envy Canada here.
F.Lee Bailey was disbarred just like Nifong.
Sid:
You have 347 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
guiowen:
Lawsuits are the cost of living in modern society. It is the way civilized people resolve their disputes. I don't believe doctors should get a free pass (or a reduced fare) for their errors, like they do in many less advanced countries.
Any lawyer will tell you that medical malpractice cases are extremely hard to win. (How many successful medical malpractice plaintiffs do you know?) And I don't know anyone who has said, "I'd like to be a doctor, but I can't afford the insurance on a paltry physician's salary." The spectre of crippling med mal lawsuits is largely a bogeyman propogated by various medical and doctors lobbies. It is just not reality.
Moreover, the same MD's and MD's lobbyists who whine about med mal lawsuits would not support a limit on recover for say, truck drivers who kill or maim others due to their negligence, even though truckers on the whole are less capable of paying large settlements (and insurance premiums) than doctors and trucking is essential to the commerce and economy.
Imagine if a trucker, driving 30 straight hours w/o sleep, and running on coffee and no doz, nodded off behind the wheel, veered over the center line and hit a surgeon crippling him and preventing him from plying his trade. The MD would sue the trucker and the truckers' employer for everything they are worth. He would be right to do so. Why should it be different if a doctor doing his 6th surgery in a row on no sleep and hopped up on drugs and/or energy drinks slips up and severs the spinal column of a trucker rendering him incapable of working?
I don't think doctors deserve special protection under the law. They should answer for their negligence just like everyone else. If they don't want to be responsible for their negligence then they shouldn't practice medicine.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
"Obscene profits by predator Insurance Companies"
Would you care to provide a quantitative analysis or are you content just to master debate?
Kenny and Sid still keep going on and on about Mangum's representation - yet they still can't point to anything they'd have done differently in the self-defense portion, which was the only portion that could have gotten Mangum a Not Guilty.
It's sad that they don't care about Crystal at all, they have a vendetta against Duke, and are just trying to use Crystal to further it. Duke wasn't the issue in this lawsuit.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL.
"guiowen:
Lawsuits are the cost of living in modern society. It is the way civilized people resolve their disputes. I don't believe doctors should get a free pass (or a reduced fare) for their errors, like they do in many less advanced countries."
Why I am cynical about medicl malpractice lawsuits and trial lawyers:
Back in the late 80'2, the early 90's, i csn't remember when the New England Journal of Medicine published what was called the Harvard Study. Trial lawyers trumpeted that the Harvard Study demonstrated that in one year in the state of New York 27,000 patients were injured by medical negligence, of whom 7,000 died. I read that study. In the year the researchers studied, there wer 2.7 million hospital admissions in New York. The researchers studied appoximately 30,000. They found about 1500 cases of iatrogenic injury, of which fewer than 300 were due to negligence. They found that 47 malpractice claims were filed. Of those cases, 39 were filed in cases in which there was no negligence.
Shortly thereafter, Annals if Internal Medicine published a study of 800 malpractice claims in New Jersey. Without knowing the outcome, they estimated that 60% of the cases were defensible. When they looked at the outcomes, they found that 57% were resolved in favor of the physician. Of the cases which went to trial, 90% were found in favor of the physicians. They concluded if a doc was not negligent, the doc did not have to worry about paying off a huge judgment. The researchers ignored what was a big elephant in the room. Between 55%-60% of the time, a malpractice claim was a physician defending against non meritorious charges of negligence. If the physician does not defend, the physician loses by default, and a defense costs a lot of money.
Meanwhile, the trial lawyer handles the Plaintiff's case on a contingency fee basis, which is usually 1/3 of the judgment for the plaintiff. Trial lawyers like to advertise, we will fight for everything you deserve. The plaintiff will not get everything the plaintiff deserves. The law firm keeps 1/3 of what the plaintiff deserves for itself. I was a plaintiff in a personal injury suit, arising from an auto accident. In addition to the contingency fee, I had to pay for the billable hours the case generated, the actual amount of work the law firm did. The cost of the billable hours was less than 1% of the contingency fee.
So excuse me if this offends. It is not just hat malpractice cases are difficult to prove. I am of the opinion that the majority of malpractice cases are a trial lawyer misrepresenting a bad situation as negligence because of the prospect of a 6 or 7 figure contingency fee.
Think about it. The doc is charged with negligence and is on trial for an enormous sum of money. The trial lawyer prosecuting the case has a personal 6 to 7 figure interest in proving the doc guilty of negligence.
I understand what you are saying; I just don't think doctors and medical professionals shouldget special treatment or special protections under the law that aren't available to anyone else.
If there is a better way for people to resolve their disputes than thru the court system, it hasn't been invented yet. Until it is, we'll have to resort to the court system, with all its faults and imperfections. In my mind, it's better than resorting to violence or telling an aggrieved party: "A doctor ruined your life by botching a medical procedure, you say? Well that's too bad because a nobody like you can't sue a doctor" or "Maybe you can sue a doctor but you can only recover a fraction of your damages because your betters in the government have decided that the financial well being of doctors outweighs the lives or ordinary people like you."
In a court case, one party wins and one party loses. Just because a judge or jury rules in favor of one party doesn't mean the other party's position was without merit or didn't deserve to be heard. In cases that are truly meritless, there are remedies available in the form of sanctions against people who make frivolous claims. And, very few attorneys will take a case they know to be meritless. There is nothing in it for them - professionally or monetarily.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Of course, Sid, you could just get Mangum to sign a waiver of attorney/client privilege and let you talk to her previous lawyers. Odd that she never does that. She apparently likes keeping you in the dark about her conversations/advice with her attorneys - or wants to tell you one side, but doesn't want you to be able to double-check it. Of course, you don't want to double-check it either, because as shown with Kia Haynes, Felony Murder, prior convictions of Daye, and countless others - when you actually check your statements, they turn out to be completely wrong.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
"I understand what you are saying; I just don't think doctors and medical professionals shouldget special treatment or special protections under the law that aren't available to anyone else."
Insuring a doc charged with negligence receives a fair and objective trial is not special treatment. If the attorney prosecuting the case has a personal 6 to 7 figure interest in proving the doc liable, then that compromises a fair trial. That applies to any civil defendant, not just to a doc.
"If there is a better way for people to resolve their disputes than thru the court system, it hasn't been invented yet. Until it is, we'll have to resort to the court system, with all its faults and imperfections."
How about limiting the size of contingency fees and requiring a plaintiff to pay a winning defendant's legal fees.
"In my mind, it's better than resorting to violence or telling an aggrieved party: 'A doctor ruined your life by botching a medical procedure, you say? Well that's too bad because a nobody like you can't sue a doctor'"
I say again, how about a plaintiff and that plaintiff's attorney be required to pay a winning defendant's legal fees. What you are saying is, in my opinion, the chance that a trial lawyer might score a big contingency fee outweighs justice. Justice requires a fair trial for a defendant. I say again, a trial lawyer prosecuting someone for negligence who has a personal 6 to 7 figure financial interest in proving the defendant liable compromises the fairness of the trial.
"or 'Maybe you can sue a doctor but you can only recover a fraction of your damages because your betters in the government have decided that the financial well being of doctors outweighs the lives or ordinary people like you.'"
In the contingency fee system, the injured defendant does not recover 100% of the damages awarded. The standard contingency fee is 1/3. That means the injured defendant recovers only 2/3 the value of his or her claim. The trial lawyer gets the other 1/3. And if the case is settled before going to trial, it is unlikely, I believe, that the trial lawyer would have done 6 to 7 figures worth of work on the case.
"In a court case, one party wins and one party loses. Just because a judge or jury rules in favor of one party doesn't mean the other party's position was without merit or didn't deserve to be heard. In cases that are truly meritless, there are remedies available in the form of sanctions against people who make frivolous claims."
What specifically are those sanctions? If a trial lawyer sues a physician and the preponderance of the evidence shows the physician was not negligent, then what merit did the suit have?
"And, very few attorneys will take a case they know to be meritless. There is nothing in it for them - professionally or monetarily."
http://www.businessinsider.com/michigan-oncologist-farid-fata-charged-with-fraud-sentenced-to-45-years-in-prison-2015-7:
This tells the story of Farid Fata, an oncologist who deliberately diagnosed healthy patients with cancer just so he could collect big bucks for treating them.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2003/2003-Ohio-2595.pdf
This refers to an orthopedic surgeon in Portsmouth, Ohio who was convicted of running an oxycontin ring in Portsmouth Ohio.
One might argue that physicians have nothing in it professionally for doing things like that. Well, people will do a lot when there is the prospect of a big payoff, especially where is little risk of consequences. Trial Lawyers are people. They face no sanctions for filing a non meritorious lawsuit. Which is why I believe a lot of trial lawyers will try to misrepresent bad situations as negligence if there is the incentive of a 6 or 7 figure payoff and little orno chance of consequences.
Anonymous at 11:06 AM wrote: "Insuring a doc charged with negligence receives a fair and objective trial is not special treatment. If the attorney prosecuting the case has a personal 6 to 7 figure interest in proving the doc liable, then that compromises a fair trial. That applies to any civil defendant, not just to a doc."
Doctors are represented by excellent lawyers who are paid by the hour for their work. Those lawyers are very competent and backed up by armies of support staff and expert witnesses who will both assist them, to the extent they need any assistance with medical matters, with medical matters and give testimony favorable to the defendant physician. I know that, because I was once a med-mal defense lawyer. I had two registered nurse/J.D.s on my staff as well as a retired physician/J.D. to advise me. If those three told me the case was a loser, I got it settled. If they told me I had a winner, I took it to trial. If they thought the case was a winner from a medical perspective, I never had any trouble finding plenty of independent experts to back up my client.
"How about ... requiring a plaintiff to pay a winning defendant's legal fees."
That just raises the cost of medical malpractice insurance as it will guaranty plaintiff's attorneys that they will get attorney fees for every winning case. They will have no incentive to settle a winning case when they can increase their fee by thousands, perhaps millions if they take a winner to trial. Further, they will have an ethical obligation to decline settlement when they can get the plaintiff a greater recovery by going to trial. There is not much worse situation for defendants than "loser pays." It just makes being negligent that much more expensive.
" I believe a lot of trial lawyers will try to misrepresent bad situations as negligence if there is the incentive of a 6 or 7 figure payoff and little orno [sic] chance of consequences."
The consequence is if the plaintiff doesn't win, the lawyer does not get paid. Worse, he or she has just wasted hours that could have been spent on paying cases. Lose too many contingent fee cases and you're broke. A law office is a business and it depends on money coming in to pay the rent, pay the staff, keep the lights on, and pay the land lord. The lawyer is the last guy paid in that situation.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"'How about ... requiring a plaintiff to pay a winning defendant's legal fees.'
That just raises the cost of medical malpractice insurance as it will guaranty plaintiff's attorneys that they will get attorney fees for every winning case."
How?
The plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer lose. I a contingency fee system they do not get paid. How do they profit if, on top of that, they have to pay the defendant's legal costs? That is what I proposed.
Walt said...
"Doctors are represented by excellent lawyers who are paid by the hour for their work. Those lawyers are very competent and backed up by armies of support staff and expert witnesses who will both assist them, to the extent they need any assistance with medical matters, with medical matters and give testimony favorable to the defendant physician. I know that, because I was once a med-mal defense lawyer. I had two registered nurse/J.D.s on my staff as well as a retired physician/J.D. to advise me. If those three told me the case was a loser, I got it settled. If they told me I had a winner, I took it to trial. If they thought the case was a winner from a medical perspective, I never had any trouble finding plenty of independent experts to back up my client."
My point is, al that costs a lot of money, paid by the Doc or by the doc's insurance company. If the Doc does defend himself he/she loses.
Why should a Doc have to pay that money, why should his insurance company pay out that kind of money if thr evidence shows the doc was not negligent?
Walt said...
"Doctors are represented by excellent lawyers who are paid by the hour for their work. Those lawyers are very competent and backed up by armies of support staff and expert witnesses who will both assist them, to the extent they need any assistance with medical matters, with medical matters and give testimony favorable to the defendant physician. I know that, because I was once a med-mal defense lawyer. I had two registered nurse/J.D.s on my staff as well as a retired physician/J.D. to advise me. If those three told me the case was a loser, I got it settled. If they told me I had a winner, I took it to trial. If they thought the case was a winner from a medical perspective, I never had any trouble finding plenty of independent experts to back up my client."
Which means there is a lot of pressure on the trial lawyer to win. Hs personal financial stake in winning may be in 6 or 7 figures. I personally believe that is not conducive to a defendant accused of negligence getting a fair and objective trial. I believe it is conducive to a trial lawyer misrepresenting a bad situation as negligence.
Walt:
With regard to those studies I noted:
USA Today once had a debate between a Doc and a Trial Lawyer on malpractice. Again this was many years ago and I do not recall te exact date.
With regard to the Harvard Study, the Trial lawyer said the Harvard Study said there shoud be more malpractice litigation. Again, I did read the study. The Study's conclusion was that malpractice litigation did not effectively address the problem and rarely compensated te victims of medical negligence.
The trial lawyer claimed te Annals of Internal Medicine study in NJ was about 800 CASES of medical malpractice. It was about 800 CLAIMS of malpractice.
This is anecdotal and you are free to accept or rejet it. "I affirm I did read this.
Walt:
Please address this issue.
Should a defendant in civil court accused of negligence receive a fair and objective trial.
If the lawyer prodsecuting the defendant is under great financial pressure to win the case, if that lawyer's personal financial interest is 6 or 7 figures, is tha conducive to the defendnt receiving a fair and objective trial?
Walt:
My personal experiences with trial lawyers:
Many years ago, I was in an auto accident. The amount of money was not great. The trial judge, in a pre trial conference, said the claim was worth x. After he heard the plaintiff's case, he told my lawyer the case was worth less than x. The mount the plaintiffs won was $500 less than x. The plaintiffs sued for 4 times what they were awarded. Their lawyer made multiple attempts to contact me behind my lawyer's back. What I believe is, because I had MD behind my name(I believe you already guessed that), the trial lawyer believed I would not be a sympathetic defendant, that I had deep pockets, that my insurance company had deep pockets so lets go for bigger bucks.
I worked for the VA. The hospital director, ignoring my advice, sent a patient to a private practice physician to have an inappropriate operation at government expense. The operation harmed the patient and contributed to his early demise. The hospital director used the hospital peer review committee to cover up his responsibility in the case and to intimidate me into taking a fall for the case(the man was originally my patient). I had to go to Central Office to force the Director to back off. There was retaliation, attempts to force me out of my job. I consulted a lawyer who was recommended to me by someone I trusted. It got to a point where I asked the lawyer to advise me, in case the hospital director tried to force me out of my job. He just blew me off, took my information about the case and then did nothing. Sometime later I was in an accident in which I was seriously injured and decided to retain a lawyer. It did involve damages worth 6 figures, meaning a 6 figure contingency fee, and it was a slam dunk. Suddenly this lawyer was on the phone offering to represent me.
I retained a different lawyer. That lawyer did not tell me that he and another lawyer were going to leave the firm and set up their own firm. The senior partner would not let him take my case with him, so he would not collect the contingency fee. The defense made a bad faith offer to settle, postpone depositions, let us review the record to satisfy themselves that my injuries were due to the accident and then they would make a settlement offer. Well, they did not review my records and they had no intention of making an appropriate offer(when the senior partner took over my case, he told me the defendant's insurance company had put a cap on how much they were willing to pay, an amount which was 20% of what the trial judge, in a subsequent conference, said the claim was worth). My original lawyer did not fight the defendant's lawyers on this. He kept advising me to wait for the defendant' insurance company to make their offer. Basically, he personally was nt going t collect the 6 figure contingency fee, so he was not going to advocate for us.
Ultimately the case was settled before going trial, for an amount 60% more than what the trial judge had said the claim was worth. I did have to pay the contingency fee. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I also had to pay for the billable hours the case generated. The cost of the billable hours was less than 1% of the contingency fee.
Everybody,
I'm glad to see we're having a reasonable discussion about an interesting and worthwhile subject. Everyone seems to be acting in good faith. That does not frequently happen on this blog.
Anonymous at 12:08 PM wrote: "The plaintiff and the plaintiff's lawyer lose. I a contingency fee system they do not get paid. How do they profit if, on top of that, they have to pay the defendant's legal costs? That is what I proposed."
That's not how loser pays works. It is a two way street. That is, losing defendants pay when they lose, losing plaintiffs pay when they lose. Insurance companies would rather not add attorney fees on as an element of special damages if they don't have to. Should we ever get "loser pays" insurance rates would be adjusted upward to reflect the new damage category.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 1:08 PM wrote: "My personal experiences with trial lawyers:
Many years ago, I was in an auto accident. ....
I worked for the VA. The hospital director, ignoring my advice, ....."
This appears to be two examples. However, I am not certain so I won't comment directly on either.
You raise, generally, a situation where in a pre-trial conference a judge suggested a verdict amount with which the plaintiff and his/her attorney disagreed. However, the jury came back at a very similar verdict. Without knowing the facts and how the witness testimony came in, we can't know for sure who was right or wrong. The only thing that is certain, everyone agreed you were negligent.
I'm even less clear on the VA case, if it is separate from the auto accident. Assuming it is, I am not clear on the legal theory so I can't really draw any conclusions from the facts presented. Was this some sort of whistle blower claim?
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous said: "Kenny and Sid still keep going on and on about Mangum's representation - yet they still can't point to anything they'd have done differently in the self-defense portion, which was the only portion that could have gotten Mangum a Not Guilty".......... There was no mention to the Jury of Daye's chronic alcoholism nor his life threatening acute alcohol withdrawal once he was deprived of his daily alcohol dose. There was no delving into his drinking history. No mention of his history of throwing knives as a sport. No attempt to give alternate interpretations, from those offered by the prosecution, of the physical evidence. Meier coerced Crystal to not put Dr. Roberts on the stand. Under cross examination she would of had a hard time sticking to her halfhearted concurrence with Nichols conclusion that Daye's brain death was due to complications of the stab wound especially if those who treated Daye at Duke were also subpoenaed to testify prior to calling her to the stand. Crystal, knowing she acted solely in self-defence was not afraid of any truthful testimony by anyone. Unlike those, such as Meier, who were reluctant or afraid to bring Duke's malpractice into the trial
Kenny,
If Meier had called Roberts to the stand, he could not have cross-examined her. Do you understand that? I know in your fantasies you would have demolished her. Those are just fantasies.
Kenny,
Your master debating is not compelling.
Walt-in-Durham:
"I'm even less clear on the VA case, if it is separate from the auto accident. Assuming it is, I am not clear on the legal theory so I can't really draw any conclusions from the facts presented. Was this some sort of whistle blower claim?"
The VA case was this. I asked an attorney for legal advice. After reviewing my information, he blew me off
Some time later, in a separate incident, I was seriously injuredin an auto accident. I panned to sue. The magnitude of the injury was great enough that it justified a 6 figure claim for damages, meaning a 6 figure contingency fee. The lawyer, who erlier blew me off, after he learned of my intentions, called me up and offered to represent me. To put it another way, no big contingency fee in play, the lawyer blew me off. Big coontingency fee in play, the lawyer who blew me off wanted to represent me.
Walt said...
"You raise, generally, a situation where in a pre-trial conference a judge suggested a verdict amount with which the plaintiff and his/her attorney disagreed. However, the jury came back at a very similar verdict. Without knowing the facts and how the witness testimony came in, we can't know for sure who was right or wrong. The only thing that is certain, everyone agreed you were negligent."
Yes I was negligent.
The point was, the claim was not worth big bucks.
The trial lawyer representing nevertheless went for more money than the claim was worth, roughly 4 times what the claim was worth. And he tried to use unethical methods to get to me behind my lawyer's back. Why would a plaintiff's attorney do that. The only reason would be, he wanted to intimidate the defendant into paying off. Why would hr try to do that? He figured the defendant(me) had deep pockets and I would cave in and pay off.
Walt said...
"That's not how loser pays works. It is a two way street. That is, losing defendants pay when they lose, losing plaintiffs pay when they lose."
With all due respect, I believe you have it wrong.If a plaintiff and his attorney file suit, and the suit is shown to be without merit via a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney are not required to pay the defendant's legal costs, unless, I think they are ordered to do so by the court.
from http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html:
"The losing side does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees, contrary to popularly held belief. In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose. This allows people to bring cases and lawsuits without the fear of incurring excessive costs if they lose the case. In contrast, in England and other countries, the losing side is often required to pay the other side's attorney's fees after losing a trial."
Walt said:
"You raise, generally, a situation where in a pre-trial conference a judge suggested a verdict amount with which the plaintiff and his/her attorney disagreed."
http://courts.uslegal.com/jury-system/issues-pertaining-to-the-jurys-performance-of-its-duties/judges-discretion-to-set-aside-verdicts/
"In a civil trial, a judge may set aside the verdict regarding how much money should be awarded by the jury to the plaintiff in punitive damages. These damages consist of a dollar figure the jury awards the plaintiff in order to punish the defendant. This amount is totally distinct from compensatory damages, which are meant to reimburse the plaintiff for lost wages as well as pain and suffering. Given the purpose of punitive damages, juries can award verdicts that in punitive damages alone amount to millions of dollars."
In my case, the judge and jury agreed on what would be compensation for the plaintiffs' lost wages, pain and suffering and what have you. The plaintiffs, probably based on what their attorney advised them, sued for 4 times that amount.
If it was not because the trial lawyer wanted a cut of a lan award larger than what the case was worth, then why?
kenhyderal said...
"There was no mention to the Jury of Daye's chronic alcoholism nor his life threatening acute alcohol withdrawal once he was deprived of his daily alcohol dose."
It was never established that Reginald Daye was a chronic alcoholic or that he was suffering from life threatening alcohol withdrawl.
"There was no delving into his drinking history."
According to the records harr the hypocritical fabricator released, the police did question people who had known Reginald Daye before the stabbing said he was not a chronic alcoholic.
"No mention of his history of throwing knives as a sport."
That came fromCrystal after she was charged with criminal responsibility for Reginald Daye's death.
"No attempt to give alternate interpretations, from those offered by the prosecution, of the physical evidence."
Alternative interpretaions of the evidence are irrelevant. The Defense has to offer evidence of its own, not just a different interpretation of the evidence.
"Meier coerced Crystal to not put Dr. Roberts on the stand. Under cross examination she would of had a hard time sticking to her halfhearted concurrence with Nichols conclusion that Daye's brain death was due to complications of the stab wound"
Who would have cross examined her, if she was a defense witness. Not the Defense attorney. Trying to impeach the opinion of his own expert would not have been an effective defense. It would have only drawn the jury's attention to, the defense expert agreed with the prosecution expert. Crystal would have had to come up with a third expert who disagreed with Doctors Nichols and Roberts, which would have meant, the preponderance of evidence was still that crystal stabbed Reginald Daye and that he died from the stab wound. Crystal would have had to establish self defense, which she could not.
"especially if those who treated Daye at Duke were also subpoenaed to testify prior to calling her to the stand."
They would have testified they were working up Reginald Daye for a suspected intra abdominal infection which, contrary to the opinions of incompetent people like you and harr the hypocritical fabricator, was indicaed considering the circumstances.
"Crystal, knowing she acted solely in self-defence was not afraid of any truthful testimony by anyone.
Crystal would have had to establish by evidence she acted in self defense. She couldn't. Just aleging she acted in self defense does not establish self defense.
"Unlike those, such as Meier, who were reluctant or afraid to bring Duke's malpractice into the trial"
There was no malpractice on the part of Duke. Malpractice can not be established by the opinions of two incompetents, harr the hypocritical fabricator who ws nrver accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, and no medical training, no medical experience kenny hissy fit. Malpractice can be established by the opinions of genuinr mrdical experts. No capable medical expert has come forward to support a finding of malpractice.
Dr. Anonymous said: "Alternative interpretaions of the evidence are irrelevant. The Defense has to offer evidence of its own, not just a different interpretation of the evidence"................ Huh? Evidence is evidence. It was collected by the Police. Coggins Franks put her spin on what was found at the scene and she was, unlike Meier, well prepared. She aggressively set out to badger Crystal and confuse her about irrelevant minutiae relating to how events took place, in space and time during the frightening and violent assault on her person. Coggins-Franks spin on the evidence was carefully crafted to give credence to the improbable and un-challenged and self-serving account of events given by Daye.
Dr. Anonymous said: "There was no malpractice on the part of Duke"................... Wrong. Esophageal intubation that is un-recognized in a timely fashion before cardiac and cerebral anoxia occur is by definition medical malpractice No matter how difficult the field is obstructed by vomitus it needs to be tested and determined to be correctly placed in a timely fashion before irreparable harm is done.
kenhyderal said...
"Dr. Anonymous said: "Alternative interpretaions of the evidence are irrelevant. The Defense has to offer evidence of its own, not just a different interpretation of the evidence"................ Huh? Evidence is evidence."
That is correct. Cases are decided on the basis of evidence, not on what a couple of incompetents say the evidence is.
"It was collected by the Police. Coggins Franks put her spin on what was found at the scene and she was, unlike Meier, well prepared."
Your interpretation, nothing more. Meier had a limited time to prepare. crystal did not. she had to rely on Daniel Mieier because she fritttered awaay more than a yer refusing to listen to and ooperate with her attorneys.
"She aggressively set out to badger Crystal and confuse her about irrelevant minutiae relating to how events took place, in space and time during the frightening and violent assault on her person."
Again, you are not presenting facts but your spin on the facts.
"Coggins-Franks spin on the evidence was carefully crafted to give credence to the improbable and un-challenged and self-serving account of events given by Daye."
Reginald Daye told police that Crystal stbbed him. Then for a while he was in no condition to be questioned. This is but a spin you put on the situation, a spin motivated by your belief that crystal the false accuser/murderess should have gotten a pass for her crimes.
kenhyderal said...
"Dr. Anonymous said: "There was no malpractice on the part of Duke"................... Wrong. Esophageal intubation that is un-recognized in a timely fashion before cardiac and cerebral anoxia occur is by definition medical malpractice No matter how difficult the field is obstructed by vomitus it needs to be tested and determined to be correctly placed in a timely fashion before irreparable harm is done."
You are wrong. You admit there were events which rendered the intubation difficult. Under those circumstances, an esophageal intubation does not rise to the level of negligence.And it takes only a few minutes before central nervous system damage takes place. What happened to Reginald Daye does not become negligence just because two people like you and harr the hypocritical fabricator say it does, considering neither of you has the expertise to know what is or is not malpractice.
Reginald Daye was being worked up for a possible intra abdominal infection. The lack of expertise on your part and on harr's part is demonstrated by your insistence there was no risk of intra abdominal infection. When the colon is lacerated by penetrating trauma, and there is an interval of hours between the trauma and the surgery, there is always a risk of infection post operatively.
Another manifestation of your lack of competence and expertise is your focus on DTs. Even if DTs were happening, and you admit it was a presumptive diagnosis, not an established diagnosis, that did not eliminate the possibility of an intra abdominal infection.
Go get some medical experts to testify it was malpractice unrelated to the stab wound that caused Reginald Daye's death. Thus far, no medical experts have come forth to call it malpractice unrelated to the stab wound.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!
AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!!
I apologize for not spending more time on the comments recently, but I have been extremely busy with a bunch of letter writing, strategizing, and working on the sharlog... Part One of which should be completed possibly as soon as tomorrow. Because it is so lengthy, I will post the parts as they are completed. Part One should be posted no later than this Friday.
Right now I have to get ready to leave for visitation... a cold forty minute walk.
I will find time later today to address comments.
As you were.
Sid:
You have 346 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous at 4:51 PM wrote: "With all due respect, I believe you have it wrong.If a plaintiff and his attorney file suit, and the suit is shown to be without merit via a verdict for the defendant, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney are not required to pay the defendant's legal costs, unless, I think they are ordered to do so by the court."
No, it is you who is wrong. In the U.S. where we have loser pays rules, typically in contract cases, the common law is that either losing side pays. If the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff pays, if the defendant loses, the defendant pays. That long common law history is why insurance companies don't really want loser pays to enter the tort law arena. They know that they would end up paying more rather than less.
Hospitals, are not dumb. They know that they will have a certain number of medical errors that rise to the level of negligence every year. They know that a certain percentage of those errors will end up in court and get very expensive. If they have to add on the plaintiff's attorney fees, on top of everything else they have to pay, their costs due to negligence will rise, not fall.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 4:58 PM wrote: "If it was not because the trial lawyer wanted a cut of a lan award larger than the case was worth, then why?
You had a good lawyer is the more likely reason.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"In the U.S. where we have loser pays rules, typically in contract cases, the common law is that either losing side pays. If the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff pays, if the defendant loses, the defendant pays. That long common law history is why insurance companies don't really want loser pays to enter the tort law arena. They know that they would end up paying more rather than less."
I again cite http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html:
"The losing side does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees, contrary to popularly held belief. In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose."
In my personal injury case. my attorney did not tell me I would have to pay the defendant's legal fees if I lost the suit.
So I still think you have ot it wrong. If a plaintiff files a malpractice suit against a doctor and loses, tht plaintiff is not required to pay the defendant's legal fees.
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 4:58 PM wrote: "If it was not because the trial lawyer wanted a cut of a lan award larger than the case was worth, then why?"
The issues were, the plaintiffs, via their lawyer, sued for more money than what the claim was worth. That contention is based on what the Judge in the case and the Jury in the case said the case was actually worth. Their lawyer tried on a few occasions to reach me behind the lawyer's back.
Let me rephrase. Why would the plaintiff's lawyer do that if he did not want to intimidate me? And why would the plaintiff's lawyer want to intimidate me if it was not to get more money out of the case, a larger award for his clients, which would mean a larger contingency fee for him?
kenhydral said:
"Esophageal intubation that is un-recognized in a timely fashion before cardiac and cerebral anoxia occur is by definition medical malpractice No matter how difficult the field is obstructed by vomitus it needs to be tested and determined to be correctly placed in a timely fashion before irreparable harm is done."
kenny hissy fit, you are describing a situation in which circumstances beyond the physician's control make an expeditious intubation difficult, if not impossible. Under those circumstances, an esophageal intubation does not automaticslly rise to the level of malpractice.
You might want to say that since the presumptive diagnosis was DTs, there was no indication to work Reginald Daye up for an intra abdominal infection. You are wrong. Fever, tachycardia, disorientation are symptoms of a serious infection. DTs, if that were really the case, would not definitively rule out an intra abdominal infection.
What put Reginald Daye at risk of developing an intra abdominal infection was the laceration of the colon which was inflicted by Crystal Mangum when she stabbed him. And contrary to the delusion of harr the hypocritical fabricator, the minimally trained, minimally experienced medical school graduate who was never accepted into residency training and who never achieved medical specialty board certification, who spent most o his post medical school career filing and losing frivolous non meritorious lawsuits, surgery did not eliminate entirely the risk of an intra abdominal infection.
Walt in Durham:
Lrt me assure you I resprct your legalopinions.
Neverthrless, I ask you to address these issues, arising from someone sued in a personal injury suit for 6 0r 7 figures worth of damages, and this includes more than physicians sued for malpractice.
Should the defendant receive a fair and objetive trial?
If the plaintiff's attorney has a 6 or 7 figure personal financial interest in proving the drfendant liablr, does that insure that the trial will be fair and objective.
Corretion of typos:
Walt in Durham:
Lrt me assure you I resprct your legal opinions.
Nevertheless, I ask you to address these issues, arising from someone sued in a personal injury suit for 6 0r 7 figures worth of damages, and this includes more than physicians sued for malpractice.
Should the defendant receive a fair and objective trial?
If the plaintiff's attorney has a 6 or 7 figure personal financial interest in proving the defendant liable, does that insure that the trial will be fair and objective.
Sure, because the Defendant has his own attorney looking out for his best interests. We have an adversarial system. Your lawyer is there to advocate for you, their lawyer is there to advocate for them, and the Judge makes sure it is fair with his rulings.
Anonymous @10:57 --
Read further down in the page you cited in the section labeled Exceptions to the American Rule
Anonymous Anonymous said...
"Sure, because the Defendant has his own attorney looking out for his best interests. We have an adversarial system. Your lawyer is there to advocate for you, their lawyer is there to advocate for them, and the Judge makes sure it is fair with his rulings."
The issue is, would the plaintiff's lawyer be advocating for the plaintiff in the first place if there were no possibility of receiving a 6 or 7 figure contingency fee from winning?
I have described my experience, in a personal injury lawsuit in which a 6 figure contingency was a near certainty. I was rear ended by a driver who was speeding while talking on her cell phone. I suffered a head injury which resulted in 3 surgical procedures on my head, a post op infection, and a post traumatic seizure disorder. I sought representation from a law firm. The partner who accepted my case did not tell me he and another partner planned to leave the firm and start their own firm. I learned about it when the business section of my local newspaper printed the story about his forming a new firm well after he had accepted my case.
The Senior Partner in the firm would not let him take my case with him-my case belonged to the firm. Meanwhile, before I learned he was starting his own firm but that his old firm was keeping my case, the defense made a bad faith offer to settle. It became obvious after a few weeks their offer was a bad faith offer. The lawyer did not fight it but kept advising me me to wait and see what the offer would be. He was not going to collect the big contingency fee, and he did not advocate for me.
Based on that, I believe, a trial lawyer will not represent a client if a 6 or 7 figure contingency fee is not part of the deal. Which means said plaintiff's attorney is mainly interested in the fee, not in being fair and objective.
To ananymous:
The plaintiff's fee arrangement with his attorney has no impact whatsoever on the defendant's defense, the quality of the defendant's representation, the effort the defense attorneys will exert on behalf of their client, or the compensation the defense attorneys receive.
Multi-million plaintiff's verdicts are the exception and not the rule. From the contingent fee, the plaintiff's lawyer has to pay his salary and overhead, the salary of the other lawyers who worked on the case, his staff, rent, insurance, subscriptions, professional memberships, continuing legal education and a slew of other expenses that go with running a law office. These costs are considerable. Additionally, the fees he makes on cases he wins or settles have to carry him and his office thru cases where he gets no fee because he loses.
It sounds like you resent plaintiffs having access to good attorneys who will work hard for their clients.
As I am sure Walt can confirm, working off of contingent fees is a hard way to make a living. It's nice when you win a big case, or settle a case quickly, but you can also go thru long droughts where you bring in little or no money. The big $100 million cases that make national headlines are few and far between and usually take years and years of work (and countless billable hours by multiple attorneys) to develop and win. In many cases, after all is said and done, plaintiffs attorneys make less than they would if they billed for their time by the hour.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous Fake Kenhyderal said...
"Anonymous @10:57 --
Read further down in the page you cited in the section labeled Exceptions to the American Rule"
I did
The key word is EXCEPTIONS to the rule. That means the rule is, the losing side is not required to pay the winning side's legal costs.
One exception not covered in the "Exceptions to the American Rule" is the situation in which the plaintiff wins a judgment and plaintiff's attorney handles the case on a contingency fee basis. Yhe Plaintiff's attorney fees and legal costs come out of the judgment. The defendant then does wind up paying the plaintiff's attorney fees.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
To ananymous:
"The plaintiff's fee arrangement with his attorney has no impact whatsoever on the defendant's defense, the quality of the defendant's representation, the effort the defense attorneys will exert on behalf of their client, or the compensation the defense attorneys receive."
I do not believe that. It is a matter of fact, when large amounts of money are in play, people will resort to less than honorable behavior, sometimes to criminal behavior, to obtain that money, Bernie Madoff, Farid Fata, Al Capone, lawyer D. Dean Mauro for example.
The contingency fee system means a plaintiff's attorney has a 6 or 7 figure personal financial interest in proving the defendant liable for negligence. In my opinion, that is conducive to misconduct.
Multi-million plaintiff's verdicts are the exception and not the rule."
Nevertheless they do happen. One possible reason that a multi million dollar verdict are rare is that the plaintiff's attorney can not make his case. And the question does arise, would the lawsuit have ever been brought if a big contingency fee was not a factor.
"From the contingent fee, the plaintiff's lawyer has to pay his salary and overhead, the salary of the other lawyers who worked on the case, his staff, rent, insurance, subscriptions, professional memberships, continuing legal education and a slew of other expenses that go with running a law office. These costs are considerable. Additionally, the fees he makes on cases he wins or settles have to carry him and his office thru cases where he gets no fee because he loses."
Which is an admission that there is a lot of pressure upon a trial lawyer firm to win and to win big.
"It sounds like you resent plaintiffs having access to good attorneys who will work hard for their clients."
Ignores the fact that said plaintiffs would not have access to said attorneys if a big contingency fee was not a factor.
"As I am sure Walt can confirm, working off of contingent fees is a hard way to make a living."
In view of that, what is wrong with a system in which a plaintiff's attorney will not have to worry about a fee? The attorney gets paid whether the attorney wins or loses, maybe paid by the losing defendant. The winning plaintiff gets to keep a whole lot more than 2/3 of the judgment.
"It's nice when you win a big case, or settle a case quickly, but you can also go thru long droughts where you bring in little or no money. The big $100 million cases that make national headlines are few and far between and usually take years and years of work (and countless billable hours by multiple attorneys) to develop and win."
Which suggests again that Trial lawyers file a lot of non meritorious lawsuits and are under a lot of financial pressure to win big cases.
"In many cases, after all is said and done, plaintiffs attorneys make less than they would if they billed for their time by the hour."
How much of that is secondary to trial lawyers filing non meritorious lawsuits? A non meritorious suit means they don't get paid. If that is true, then the contention, that contingency fees discourage non meritorious suits is false.
Anonymous at 11:56 AM wrote: "Sure, because the Defendant has his own attorney looking out for his best interests. We have an adversarial system. Your lawyer is there to advocate for you, their lawyer is there to advocate for them, and the Judge makes sure it is fair with his rulings."
Ding-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
Anonymous at 10:57 AM wrote: "I again cite http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/attorney-fees-does-losing-side-30337.html:
"The losing side does not ordinarily have to pay the winning side's attorney's fees, contrary to popularly held belief. In the United States, the general rule (called the American Rule) is that each party pays only their own attorney's fees, regardless of whether they win or lose.""
My comments, clearly, were aimed at a loser pays proposal. One of the problems with your use of the anonymous label is it is difficult to follow just what you might be referring to in previous posts. That, or you are engaging in master debating.
"In my personal injury case. my attorney did not tell me I would have to pay the defendant's legal fees if I lost the suit."
Of course he did not. We don't have that rule as it stands. However, you proposed a loser pays rule to reign in the cost of medical malpractice cases. I pointed out why such a rule would not.
"So I still think you have ot it wrong. If a plaintiff files a malpractice suit against a doctor and loses, tht plaintiff is not required to pay the defendant's legal fees."
No, you are wrong. The proposal was for a loser pays rule. I pointed out why it would not work as you think it will.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 11:47 AM wrote: "Should the defendant receive a fair and objective trial?"
Should the plaintiff receive a fair trial?
Defendants have access to the highest quality legal talent in the world. I and my colleagues in the defense bar usually have the best educations from the best law schools. We have back up from deep pocketed insurance companies who allow us to hire the best consultants and best expert witnesses available. We have, in many cases, clients who have experts on staff who can educate us where the technical and scientific problems lie in any given issue. (Information which the plaintiff can never get access to, I should add.) In my situation, I had years of training, first with a busy public defender's office, then with a AV rated defense firm as an associate before I became a partner there. I tried dozens of civil cases before juries with the aid of a partner long before I tried my first jury as lead counsel. In high profile cases, I had access to a jury consultant. I had paralegals and private investigators to do my bidding in the field and frankly, I had clients who rarely blinked if I said I wanted to go investigate a scene myself. (I normally did not as I prefer to use a PI to do that, but sometimes, it helps to see what the eye witnesses saw.) I had insurance companies with years of jury trial verdict data in confidential files and much more settlement data in confidential files that I could mine when making settlement offers.
Further, the defense has the greatest advantage in the world. We go second and we get the last word before the evidence starts to go in before the jury. We always get to see and hear the plaintiff's witnesses before we even begin our case. Another defense advantage is the plaintiff has to prove his/her case by a preponderance of the evidence, each and every element of the case. Fail on just one element and we win.
Two more advantages plaintiffs never have. Once a month, or once a quarter depending on the client, defense counsel gets a large check in the mail for services rendered in the previous month or quarter. Last huge advantage, shortly after January 1, each year, a large annual retainer check arrives from each and every corporate client on the rolls.
Yeah, with all those advantages, I most certainly believe plaintiffs should get a fair trial. But no, I see no evidence that contingent fees give plaintiffs an unfair advantage.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 11:12 AM wrote: " Why would the plaintiff's lawyer do that if he did not want to intimidate me? And why would the plaintiff's lawyer want to intimidate me if it was not to get more money out of the case, a larger award for his clients, which would mean a larger contingency fee for him?"
Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel
(a) During the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
Either plaintiff's attorney had a court order or your attorney's permission to communicate with you or he was violating Rule 4.2(a).
If he was violating Rule 4.2(a) that was a very rare situation. In my experience, I know of one instance where it did happen. When I found out, from my client, I brought the matter to the attention of the attorney involved and the law partner supervising the matter. The partner, terminated his associate and moved to withdraw his firm from the case. He referred the matter to another law firm.
The point is, most lawyers take their ethical responsibilities seriously. Where they don't, their partners usually do. Mike Nifong, Tracey Kline, the lawyer in your case and the lawyer who did it in a case of mine are exceptions, very rare exceptions.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 12:50 PM wrote: "... plaintiff's attorney is mainly interested in the fee, not in being fair and objective."
Plaintiff's lawyer better not be interested in being fair or objective. His duty, like defense counsel's is to zealously advocate for his client within the bounds of the law. Paragraph 2 of the preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Judge's duty is to be fair.
The jury's duty collectively and individually is to be fair.
The court staff's duty is to be fair.
But, not the lawyer in a civil case. His/her duty is to zealously advocate, within the bounds of the law, the client's position.
Different rule for Prosecutors, see Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 1:59 PM wrote: ".... Nevertheless they [multi-million dollar verdicts] do happen. One possible reason that a multi million dollar verdict are rare is that the plaintiff's attorney can not make his case. And the question does arise, would the lawsuit have ever been brought if a big contingency fee was not a factor."
Multi-million dollar verdicts happen in tort and medical malpractice cases for one reason and one reason only. There are multi-million dollar amounts of medical damages. I have defended a few tort cases were the claims were in the multi-million dollar realm. First one, was a wrongful death action brought by the wife and children of a state police officer killed by my client's employee a truck driver. The officer had his red/blue lights activated and had his patrol car blocking one quarter of the lane. The day was clear. My client's truck had perfectly functioning brakes and the glass was clear. Never-the-less, my client's driver decided to brush the officer as he was giving a ticket to someone along the side of the road. The officer was not killed instantly, but suffered fatal injuries. He lingered in a hospital for days before he died. He left behind four children and a widow who had given up her career to have children.
Half a million dollars in medical bills, days suffering in intensive care. Ultimately four children left without a father's support and a wife. Yeah, that one came in well over the usual wrongful death value. I won't say what I counseled my client to do, but we settled with the widow and kids for $2,000,000. No confidentiality clause, nothing. I will say that at mediation, my client (the owner of the trucking company) made what I believe was a very honest and heartfelt apology to the widow and children.
My other mulit-million dollar case, was a drunken truck driver (my client) who crossed the center line of a two lane highway. He struck the plaintiff's car almost head on. My client was uninjured in the accident. Plaintiff was severely injured. She endured a traumatic leg amputation, a broken pelvis, broken collar bone, broken talus bone in the foot that was not amputated, broke radius and ulna, and fractures of the T-10 and T-11 vertibrae. Surgeries on the back were successful in stabilizing the spine. The talus surgery was successful in repairing that bone. The radius and ulna required several surgeries to restore hand usage. All in all, the plaintiff was in the hospital for seven months and in rehabilitation for another year. Amazingly, she was able to learn how to walk with the help of a prosthesis, quad cane and a lot of physical therapy. I was able to settle that case too. While I am bound by a confidentiality agreement, plaintiff counsel and I are allowed to discuss the facts of the case and the fact that medical specials exceeded $1,500,000. The case was settled accordingly.
Only big medical specials will support a big verdict.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 11:56 AM wrote: "Sure, because the Defendant has his own attorney looking out for his best interests. We have an adversarial system. Your lawyer is there to advocate for you, their lawyer is there to advocate for them, and the Judge makes sure it is fair with his rulings."
Ding-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!"
No we have someone wanting to dodge issues.
Should someone be compelled to defend himself just because someone filed suit against him. In the criminal system, a prosecutor has to establish probable cause before charging someone. In the civil system, a plaintiff files suit and the defendant is compelled to defend. If the defendant does not defend, the defendant loses by default.
In a criminal jurisdiction, if a prosecutor was paid only if he obtained a conviction, that would be quickly ruled unconstitutional. What would be ruled is that giving a financial incentive to a prosecutor to obtain convictions jeopardizes a defendant's rightto a fair trial. In a civil suit, in a case litigated for a contingency fee, the plaintiff's attorney has a financial incentive, usually a six or seven figure incentive to prove a defendant liable. That does compromise the possibility of a civil defendant receiving a fair trial. It has been claimed that large verdicts are a myth. How many civil suits going to trial involve a contingrncy fee whis of than 6 figures?
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 1:59 PM wrote: ".... Nevertheless they [multi-million dollar verdicts] do happen. One possible reason that a multi million dollar verdict are rare is that the plaintiff's attorney can not make his case. And the question does arise, would the lawsuit have ever been brought if a big contingency fee was not a factor."
Multi-million dollar verdicts happen in tort and medical malpractice cases for one reason and one reason only. There are multi-million dollar amounts of medical damages. I have defended a few tort cases were the claims were in the multi-million dollar realm. First one, was a wrongful death action brought by the wife and children of a state police officer killed by my client's employee a truck driver. The officer had his red/blue lights activated and had his patrol car blocking one quarter of the lane. The day was clear. My client's truck had perfectly functioning brakes and the glass was clear. Never-the-less, my client's driver decided to brush the officer as he was giving a ticket to someone along the side of the road. The officer was not killed instantly, but suffered fatal injuries. He lingered in a hospital for days before he died. He left behind four children and a widow who had given up her career to have children."
What I notice is that your client was the employer, not the truck driver. Your client had deep pockets. Did the truck driver? It raises the question, would any trial lawyer have filed suit if there were no deep pockets to access. The plaintiffs did deserve compensation. I do not question that. But would any trial lawyer have been willing to fight for what they deserved against a judgment proof defendant.
Call me out if you don't like my comment, but the questions are legitimate.
Walt said:
"Only big medical specials will support a big verdict."
Again I agree with that.
But, citing my experience, I suffered severe injuries in an accident caused by a negligent driver. She was speeding, talking on her cell phone, and rear ended me at a speed of between 50-55 mph in a 40 mph zone while I was stopped at an intersection on a clear day, waiting to turn left, my brake lights on, my turn signal flashing. My injuries were not as severe as your client's, but they were severe enough to result in a 6 figure damage award and a 6 figure contingency fee.
I went to a prominent law firm. The partner who represented me did not tell me that he and another partner were planning to leave the firm and start their own firm. He was told he would not be able to take my case with him to his new firm, meaning he would not collect the six figure contingency fee the case would generate. The defendant's insurance company did make a bad faith offer to settle the case. The attorney who was still supposed to represent me did not fight the offer when it became apparent it was a bad faith offer. His attitude, I would say, was, if he could not collect the six figure contingency fee, no one would.
So I ask again, would a trial lawyer represent any plaintiff if there was no prospect for a big contingency fee?
Walt in Durham:
Here is another ne for you. When I was on staff at a VA hospital, I operated on a patient who suffered a complication which left him with severe cns damage. I will say the complication happened at 1 AM, when I was home asleep. Before I left the hospital, he was stable and there was nothing to indicate he would suffer such a cmplication.
He had a daughter.. He ad his daughter had been estranged for a number of years. He never mentioned his daughter when I was counseling him for surgery. She was not present in the waiting room on the day of surgery. She did not show up until days after the surgery, not until a couple days after the complication.
After she arrived, she began writing down notes. She sued the US Government for $25 million. She would not have had to bear the cost of her father's medical care. The VA would have provided that all, free of charge to her. In her complaint she said, she had been denied the love and companionship and comfort of her father. She hd deprived herself of all that years before the surgery.
A law firm represented her on a contingency fee basis. I have read from multiple sources that the usual contingency fee is 1/3. 1/3 of $25 million would be more than $8.3 million.
Did patient deserve compensation? Yes. Did the lawyer or the law firm deserve compensation. No.
And I doubt that the law firm would have ever represented her if there had been no prospect of an 8 figure contingency fee.
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 12:50 PM wrote: "... plaintiff's attorney is mainly interested in the fee, not in being fair and objective."
Plaintiff's lawyer better not be interested in being fair or objective. His duty, like defense counsel's is to zealously advocate for his client within the bounds of the law. Paragraph 2 of the preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Judge's duty is to be fair.
The jury's duty collectively and individually is to be fair.
The court staff's duty is to be fair.
But, not the lawyer in a civil case. His/her duty is to zealously advocate, within the bounds of the law, the client's position.
Different rule for Prosecutors, see Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct."
So answer this question. Would it be or not be in the interest of fairness for the jdge to make the jury aware of the fact that the attorney trying to prove the defendant liable for damages has a 6 or 7 figure personal financial interest in doing so? Do not say that would be unfair to the plaintiff. According to you, both judge and jury are under obligation to both parties.
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 11:12 AM wrote: " Why would the plaintiff's lawyer do that if he did not want to intimidate me? And why would the plaintiff's lawyer want to intimidate me if it was not to get more money out of the case, a larger award for his clients, which would mean a larger contingency fee for him?"
Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel
(a) During the representation of a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court order.
Either plaintiff's attorney had a court order or your attorney's permission to communicate with you or he was violating Rule 4.2(a)."
I can assure you the plaintiff's attorney did not have the consent of my attorney to communicate with me directly.
If my lawyer gave the plaintiff's lawyer permission to communicate with me, would he have had to inform me of that? Personally, I believe he would have had a duty to inform me. He did not. When I informed my attorney the plaintiff's attorney tried to communicate with me directly, he informed plaintiff's attorney he was engaging in unethical behavior.
Correction and edit.
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 12:50 PM wrote: "... plaintiff's attorney is mainly interested in the fee, not in being fair and objective."
Plaintiff's lawyer better not be interested in being fair or objective. His duty, like defense counsel's is to zealously advocate for his client within the bounds of the law. Paragraph 2 of the preamble to the Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Judge's duty is to be fair.
The jury's duty collectively and individually is to be fair.
The court staff's duty is to be fair.
But, not the lawyer in a civil case. His/her duty is to zealously advocate, within the bounds of the law, the client's position.
Different rule for Prosecutors, see Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct."
So answer this question. Would it be or not be in the interest of fairness for the jdge to make the jury aware of the fact that the attorney trying to prove the defendant liable for damages has a 6 or 7 figure personal financial interest in doing so? Do not say that would be unfair to the plaintiff. According to you, both judge and jury are under obligation to both parties to insure fairness. Explain why it would not be fair to the defendant to inform the jury deciding the defendant's fate that the attorney trying to prove the defendant liable has a personal financial interest in doing so.
Walt in Durham:
Something else to ponder regarding multi million dollar lawsuits:
It was said on this forum that multi million dollar verdicts are rare. The questions this raises, are these. How many million dollar lawsuits are actually filed. Of those actually filed, how many are ultimately decided in fabor of the defendant? How many which actually get to court are actually decided in favor of the defendant?
I previously referred to a study which was published in Annalsof Internal Medicine in the early 90s. The researchers studied 800 claims of malpractice, found tht 57% were decided in favor if the defendant. Of the cases which went to court, 90% were decided in favor of the defendants.
In your opinion, what is the significance of so many lawsuits in a series being decided in favor of the defendant. A response of, proof of liability is difficult is not a valid answer. In most of the cases liability was not proven.
Walt in Durham:
More on the issue of Medical Malpractice, and I do not mean medical malpractice does not exist. A couple of times in my life a doc responsible for malpractice tried to blame me for his error.
Someone, I believe it was Abe Froman, said that medical malpractice is difficult to prove. That supports the findings in the Annals of Internal Medicine Article to which I referred, that most medical malpractice claims are decided in favor of the physician. I say, it would have been more appropriate to say, in most claims of medical malpractice negligence can not be proven. And that does not imply that proof of medical malpractice is difficult to prove. It implies that there was no malpractice in the first place.
And why should a physician not guilty of negligence have to defend himself against non meritorious charges of negligence which are being pushed by a trial lawyer who has a personal financial interest in proving negligence. Why would it be unfair to expect that trial lawyer and his client to pay the accused physician's legal. expenses.
My research does not agree with your contention, that a losing plaintiff has to pay the defendants legal expenses.
Why would the prospect of a 6 or 7 figure ontingency fee be disregarded as a factor in the filing of so many non meritorious claims of malpractice?
"Why would the prospect of a 6 or 7 figure ontingency fee be disregarded as a factor in the filing of so many non meritorious claims of malpractice?"
Because it is not factor. An attorney working on a contingency would have to spend hours preparing the frivolous case, to the exclusion of other, paying work. His reputation, future earning capacity and even his license to practice law would be jeopardized if he brought and pursued spurious lawsuits. He would risk sanctions for bringing a frivolous case and he would ultimately get paid nothing for his efforts. Those are pretty significant deterents against bringing frivolous, non-meritorious cases. On the other hand, a plaintiff's lawyer working on an horuly basis would risk no financial loss for racking up the hours working on frivolous cases.
And, just because a party loses does not mean their case was frivolous or without merit. It just means they weren't able to prove their case to the satisfaction fo the judge or jury, or that the defendant had a defense to the case.
Someone has to lose a trial. It's not unlike a championship sporting contest. Two teams play and one loses. Just because a team loses does not mean they played poorly, or that they didn't deserve to be in the championship. It just means that they were outplayed. Would you say that the State's criminal case against OJ Simpson for murdering his ex-wife was frivolous and without merit because OJ won?
I get that you don't like plaintiff's lawyers. However, your ideas seem to be a solution in search of a problem. There simply is not that much medical malpractice litigation. The impact it has on medical costs in the USA is negligible. Defense and plaintiff's attorneys are fairly compensated and the legal process we have in the US is the best way known to mankind to resolve disputes between parties. Being sued from time to time is the cost of pursuing any trade and living in a civilized society.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Sid:
You have 345 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous at 5:16 AM wrote: "My research does not agree with your contention, that a losing plaintiff has to pay the defendants legal expenses."
This has been asked and answered for you, not once, but twice. Loser pays was your proposal, not the state of the law. You are in danger of looking like a troll.
Walt-in-Durham
Anonymous at 5:16 AM wrote: "And why should a physician not guilty of negligence have to defend himself against non meritorious charges of negligence which are being pushed by a trial lawyer who has a personal financial interest in proving negligence. Why would it be unfair to expect that trial lawyer and his client to pay the accused physician's legal. expenses."
You don't know if the physician is, or is not negligent until a jury decides it. The way we resolve disputes is in court. The fact that defendants win more often than they lose does not change the constitutional requirement for due process.
Walt-in-Durham
Walt said...
"You don't know if the physician is, or is not negligent until a jury decides it. The way we resolve disputes is in court. The fact that defendants win more often than they lose does not change the constitutional requirement for due process."
So, find statistics on how many medical malpractice cases involve claims for damages which would generate a 6 or 7 figure contingency fee, how many of them are ultimately decided in favor of the physician defendant before going to trial, how many which go to trial are decided in favor of the physician. If the statistics show an overwhelming number of medical malpractice cases are decided for physicians, and I would define overwhelming as over 55% of cases, then that does demonstrate that most of the medical malpractice claims filed are not meritorious, that the plaintiff's attorney can not prove negligence. If the overwhelming majority of cases are for damages which would generate a 6 or 7 figure contingency fee, then that does indicate the size of the contingency fee is a factor in whether or not a claim is filed.
I repeat, the claim by Abe Froman, that medical malpractice is difficult to prove, suggests that most malpractice claims are decided in favor of physicians. One can not infer from that that negligence happened. The only thing one can conclude from that is that in the majority of those cases the plaintiff's attorney did not have enough evidence to prove negligence.
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 5:16 AM wrote: "My research does not agree with your contention, that a losing plaintiff has to pay the defendants legal expenses."
This has been asked and answered for you, not once, but twice. Loser pays was your proposal, not the state of the law." You are in danger of looking like a troll."
This is what you posted in your comment from January 20, 2016 at 6:14 AM.
"No, it is you who is wrong. In the U.S. where we have loser pays rules, typically in contract cases, the common law is that either losing side pays. If the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff pays, if the defendant loses, the defendant pays. That long common law history is why insurance companies don't really want loser pays to enter the tort law arena. They know that they would end up paying more rather than less."
So I ask you again about what I suggested:
I suggested that if a plaintiff loses a lawsuit, then the plaintiff and his attorney would pay the defendant's legal costs. If the plaintiff and the plaintiff's attorney get nothing and end up paying the defendant's legal expenses, how does that result in the defendant's liability insurer paying more? I say, under such a system, the insurance company is reimbursed for any expenses of defending their client and they wind up paying nothing.
"You are in danger of looking like a troll."
I would say you are resorting to ad hominem attacks, a tactic which indicates you are uncomfortable with what I am saying.
Walt said at
January 21, 2016 at 4:24 AM
"Either plaintiff's attorney had a court order or your attorney's permission to communicate with you or he was violating Rule 4.2(a)."
I thought I would give you more details.
The accident happened in one state. At the time I was sued, I got had gotten out of the Army and had moved to another state. The plaintiff could have served me with the complaint at my parents' house, which I had used as my US address when I was overseas. He wanted to serve me personally. He tried to subpoena my parents, put hem under oath, and force them to give him my address at the time. My attorneys blocked that.
Then the plaintiff's attorney had someone call my parents' house, representing themselves as representatives of the Republican party and asking if they could talk to me. I had never registered republican in my life.
There was no court order. There was no permission given by my attorney to the plaintiff's attorney to contact me directly. He tried to go behind my attorney's back to contact me. I say again, he wanted to intimidate me. He thought he could cow me into settling the case for more than the case was worth.
Walt said...
"Anonymous at 5:16 AM wrote: "And why should a physician not guilty of negligence have to defend himself against non meritorious charges of negligence which are being pushed by a trial lawyer who has a personal financial interest in proving negligence. Why would it be unfair to expect that trial lawyer and his client to pay the accused physician's legal. expenses."
You don't know if the physician is, or is not negligent until a jury decides it. The way we resolve disputes is in court. The fact that defendants win more often than they lose does not change the constitutional requirement for due process."
Okay, I will rephrase. After it has been proven in court that the plaintiff can not prove negligence, meaning the case was without merit, why should the defendant physician or his insurance company be saddled with the responsibility of paying the legal costs?
And, for good measure, how does a system in which the plaintiff who pays the legal costs if his case is shown to be without merit reimburses the defense for the legal costs lead to higher costs of liability insurance or higher costs of medial care?
Abe Froman:
"There simply is not that much medical malpractice litigation."
How do you define "not much medical malpractice litigation"?
I give you again the article from the early 90's which was published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, 800 malpractice claims, of which 57% were ultimately decided in favor of the physician. 457 non meritorious claims of medical malpractice out of a total of 800 is too many.
I say again, your claim, that medical malpractice is difficult to prove does indicate that most medical malpractice claims are without merit.
"No, it is you who is wrong. In the U.S. where we have loser pays rules, typically in contract cases, the common law is that either losing side pays. If the plaintiff loses, the plaintiff pays, if the defendant loses, the defendant pays. That long common law history is why insurance companies don't really want loser pays to enter the tort law arena. They know that they would end up paying more rather than less."
Please READ Walt's comment - he noted we have loser pays in contract cases, not in tort law. We do not generally have loser pays in the U.S., as Walt has stated.
Anonymous said...
"Please READ Walt's comment - he noted we have loser pays in contract cases, not in tort law. We do not generally have loser pays in the U.S., as Walt has stated."
I did.
I am suggesting that in personal injury cases, the rule be changed, that if a personal injury lawsuit is shown to be withou merit, which means the plaintiff can not prove by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant is liable, then the plaintiff and plaintiff's attorney should be responsible for paying the defendant's legal costs.
In a civil case,and I am speaking from experience, once a suit is initiated the defendant is forced to defend himself, at great personal expense, either directly or via liability insurance which costs the defendant premiums. The plaintiff does not have to worry about paying anything. His lawyer gets paid from whatever the defendant is ordered to pay. Further, I do believe that a lot of personal injury suits are filed because the trial lawyer sees a chance to score a big contingency fee.
Maybe you should ask. why are lawyers opposed to that? Is it because most personal injury suits are shown to be without merit?
I again cite Abe Froman's post, that medical malpractice is difficult to prove. I say that indicates that most medical malpractice cases are found to be without merit.
The Defense bar is opposed to loser pays. The insurance companies don't want it. Plaintiffs wouldn't mind it at all. Right now, there are a lot of cases that are not brought because the contingency fee structure would not justify a lawsuit. If someone only has $5 or $6k in damages, or even $20k - it's hard to get a plaintiffs' lawyer to bring that case on a contingency if it is going to be a complicated or long case/trial, because they will only get a few thousand. With loser pays, attorneys would come out of the woodwork to take those smaller cases, because when they win, the Defense has to pay their costs.
That's why the Defense bar doesn't want it. They know that it would cost them a lot more money than the current system.
The Plaintiffs would kill for it, but the Insurance Companies have all the money and fight it tooth and nail, and they have the lobbyists behind them.
Medical Malpractice is difficult to prove because of the different standard. Normal negligence is the reasonable prudent person under the same or similar circumstances standard. So, the jury says "what would a reasonable person do" and the jury is presumed reasonable, so if they say you were negligent, you are.
Doctors are held to the standard of care - meaning what is the standard of care in that area, and did the doctor violate it. It can only be proved by an expert, so to win a malpractice case, you need to find another doctor, who is familiar with the local standard of care (it's not a national standard), who is willing to testify that doctor fell below that standard of care. That's hard.
Plus, remember - just like in Criminal Defense and almost all other cases - the Defendant has a tremendous amount of control over whether a case goes to trial or not. On the cases that are really egregious, that they don't want to get a lot of attention, they offer a settlement. Just like the prosecutor offers a plea. The reason most malpractice trials are lost is the same reason most criminal trials are lost - the medical providers just refuse to settle the ones that are close (because not everything is clear cut). But, the clear cases of malpractice settle, the close ones go to trial, the bad ones should never be brought, but when they are, they lose.
Anonymous @ January 21, 2016 at 11:38 AM
The qyestion I am asking is, how many medical malpractice cases are ultimately decided in favor of the physician defendant?
Anonymous January 21, 2016 at 11:38 AM
The reason most malpractice trials are lost is the same reason most criminal trials are lost - the medical providers just refuse to settle the ones that are close (because not everything is clear cut).
Again, the question I am asking is, does anyone really know how many medical malpractice cases are ultimately decided i favor of the physician defendant?
That go to trial? The majority of them. That are brought? Not nearly as many, but depends on how you define it. Most settlements contain no admission of liability.
Most experts in the industry will tell you that preventable medical mistakes kill around 60,000 people per year, and injure hundreds of thousands more. In less than 5% of cases where malpractice occurred is a claim even considered, and in less than 5% of that 5% is a lawsuit filed.
There are many reasons for that:
Cost - with all the experts, it is extremely expensive for a plaintiff to bring a case.
Damages - a lot of these "deaths" and injuries are small - it's considered an error caused death if the doctor accidentally gives the person too much meds and they die at 1:05, whereas without the overdose they'd have died at 1:10 - but the damages for that 5 minutes are non-existant.
Knowledge - most people just don't know what killed or injured grandma. If she is really sick, the family may be expecting a bad outcome, or death, and not think anything is suspicious when it happens. The Hospital and doctor sure won't tell them it was a mistake.
Plus, you can't sue for bad outcomes, you can only sue for damages from preventable medical mistakes, and if someone has a lot of issues, that is hard to prove.
Anonymous at 11:31 AM wrote: The Defense bar is opposed to loser pays. The insurance companies don't want it. Plaintiffs wouldn't mind it at all. Right now, there are a lot of cases that are not brought because the contingency fee structure would not justify a lawsuit. If someone only has $5 or $6k in damages, or even $20k - it's hard to get a plaintiffs' lawyer to bring that case on a contingency if it is going to be a complicated or long case/trial, because they will only get a few thousand. With loser pays, attorneys would come out of the woodwork to take those smaller cases, because when they win, the Defense has to pay their costs."
Din-Ding-Ding, ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner!
Walt-in-Durham
Because of the contingency fee - meaning if you lose you don't get paid, and the costs of experts, etc., required - Plaintiffs aren't bringing the frivolous lawsuits the defense would have you believe. The attorney only brings a lawsuit if he thinks he's going to win, and win enough to justify it. Go to loser pays, and you will see a lot more lawsuits filed.
Anonymous said...
"The Senior Partner in the firm would not let him take my case with him-my case belonged to the firm. Meanwhile, before I learned he was starting his own firm but that his old firm was keeping my case, the defense made a bad faith offer to settle."
It appears your lawyer who left the firm failed to give you correct advice. No case belongs to a law firm. When a lawyer leaves a firm, the client has the right to decide who will continue to represent him or her. The client owns the case files, not the firm. Except in a case in which the client owes the firm fees, the firm has an obligation to release the files to the departing attorney-- if those are the client's instructions.
In a case in which the client has a contingency fee arrangement with the firm, transferring the case to the departing attorney raises a complication as to how the original firm and the departing attorney will share the fee, if the client ultimately wins the case. But that complication does not mean that the firm owns the case and is entitled to keep it.
Shouldn't a loser like hooker/murderer Crystal Mangum have to pay for accusing innocent white men of raping her when the facts show they all found her repulsive? Time and time again women who make false rape accusations are not punished in any way.If Magnum had been put in prison Daye would still be alive.
Anonymous said...
"The Senior Partner in the firm would not let him take my case with him-my case belonged to the firm. Meanwhile, before I learned he was starting his own firm but that his old firm was keeping my case, the defense made a bad faith offer to settle."
It appears your lawyer who left the firm failed to give you correct advice. No case belongs to a law firm. When a lawyer leaves a firm, the client has the right to decide who will continue to represent him or her. The client owns the case files, not the firm. Except in a case in which the client owes the firm fees, the firm has an obligation to release the files to the departing attorney-- if those are the client's instructions.
In a case in which the client has a contingency fee arrangement with the firm, transferring the case to the departing attorney raises a complication as to how the original firm and the departing attorney will share the fee, if the client ultimately wins the case. But that complication does not mean that the firm owns the case and is entitled to keep it."
Well, let me give you soe details.
My original attorney deposed the defendant. I told him I had read about his planns to start his new firm. He offered to continue representing me after he left. that is why I believed he was not going to be able to take my case with him.
By that time I was disillusioned with him. The defendant's lawyers did make a bad faith offer to settle the case. My original attorney did not fight the defense lawyers on this, which would have been in my interest. when my wife nd I told him we would no longer go along with the defense offer to settle, my original attorney kept urging me to go along with it.
After the defendant's deposition, the senior partner told me he would be arguing my case..
Anonymous said...
"Because of the contingency fee - meaning if you lose you don't get paid, and the costs of experts, etc., required - Plaintiffs aren't bringing the frivolous lawsuits the defense would have you believe. The attorney only brings a lawsuit if he thinks he's going to win, and win enough to justify it. Go to loser pays, and you will see a lot more lawsuits filed."
I have done some research on how many medical malpractice cases are decided for the defendant. I cameacross this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628507/
"Plaintiffs won only 27% of these trials, about one case in four. However, when the plaintiffs did win, the median award was $422,000, a figure well above median awards in torts and other civil lawsuits."
and:
"Some of the patients who lost at trial did not come away empty-handed. In some instances more than one healthcare provider may be named in the lawsuit. For some of the defendants, their legal negligence is reasonably clear and they settle prior to trial, sometimes for major amounts of money, leaving the remaining defendant or defendants. Compared to defendants who settled, the evidence of negligence is relatively weaker against these defendants who remain in the lawsuit and they prevail at trial".
It is common practice for a law firm litigating a medical malpractice case to name each and every doc involved in the case as a defendant. I know of one case, a patient had a cardiac arrest in the hospital, an anesthesiologist, during the resuscitation, inserted an IV. That was the extent of his involvement.He was named a defendant in the ensuing malpractice litigation.
Getting back to the passage I just quoted, it seems that even if a doc responsible for the malpractice admits liability and pays off, the law firm still goes after other defendants whose responsibility is nil, to the extent of actually taking them to trial. That does not support your contention that trial lawyers will refrain from litigating cases in which there is little to no chance of recovery.
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Anonymous @ January 21, 2016 at 6:20 PM
Some more info for you:
When the case was settled, the defendant's insurance company issued me a check for the settlement amount. I endorsed the check over to my law firm. The law firm then issued me a check for settlement amount minus contingency fee and cost of billable hours.
I was never billed by my original lawyer. I saw no evidence that my original lawyer ever got a cut of the contingency fee. Maybe my law firm did pay him something but I saw no evidence of that.
Again, I believed he had been told he would not be able to take my case with him.
Sid:
You have 344 days to exonerate and free Mangum.
Abe Froman
Chicago, IL
Anonymous at 3:30 AM wrote: "I have done some research on how many medical malpractice cases are decided for the defendant. I cameacross this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2628507/
"Plaintiffs won only 27% of these trials, about one case in four. However, when the plaintiffs did win, the median award was $422,000, a figure well above median awards in torts and other civil lawsuits.""
You should probably not selectively cite an article. From the very same article:"It is crucial as a first step to acknowledge medical negligence does occur. Even though the size of the estimates of its incidence vary and are contested, even the lowest estimates conclude that annual death rates across the United States for this cause number at least 100,000 persons and many more suffer serious injuries, some of them grave." From that very same article: "Juries decide only about 7% of medical malpractice lawsuits"
You are reaching an erroneous conclusion from a very small sample size. The conclusion to draw from the article is two fold. First, very few people who are victims of medical malpractice actually make claims. Second, in those cases where claims are made, the legal system is very fair to doctors, hospitals and other medical professionals. Juries seem to do a very good job of not only sorting out the negligent from the non-negligent but also deciding what is deserving of compensation.
The bottom line is medical malpractice is a problem. It kills more people than automobiles and guns combined. So, I have little sympathy for doctors who claim they are inconvenienced by having to answer a few questions and spend a little of their money putting things right.
Walt-in-Durham
Hey Walt in Durham:
One thing I noted in the above cited article is that in many malpractice cases, each and every doctor involved with the patient is listed as a defendant. I recalled a case of which I was aware, of an anesthesiologist who inserted an iv into a patient who had suffered a cardiac arrest-that was his only involvement with the patient-he was named as a defendant in the resulting malpractice litigation.
You accuse me of citing an article. I am noticing something in an article and having questions. That does not add up to selectively citing an article, just like harr's opinion that Reginald Daye was killed by malpractice does not establish malpractice.
The article said, it happens that multiple docs are individually sued over the same episode of alleged malpractice. One defendant may admit liability and settle. Other defendants, against whom there is a not so strong case, will not settle. The trial lawyers will still take them to trial. The results cited in that study do suggest the trial lawyers are taking to trial defendants against whom they can not prevail.
I say again, that does not support the contention that trial lawyers will not litigate non meritorious cases.
Ubes:
We're tired of listening to your sad story about your lawsuit. Please resume your liestoppers crank spinning and quacking.
harr the hypocritical fabricator fabricates again.
The great kilgo is but a harrian fabrication.
HEY, EVERYBODY... LISTEN UP!!
IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT!
Apologies for not responding to comments more expeditiously... but I've been extremely busy.
To catch you up on the status of legal cases:
Crystal has filed a Notice to Appeal with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA and has yet to file her initial informal brief which is due by November 30th.
Crystal has filed with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a second Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. She is awaiting a ruling to grant her to file the second Habeas petition.
My lawsuit against WRAL in U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of North Carolina has replied to the defendants' Response in opposition to the Court-hosted settlement conference being held prior to a ruling on summary judgment motions.
As you were.
Post a Comment