In a recent post I set out in their entirety the comments of a doctor who told us of the fear he has testifying on behalf of plaintiffs in medical negligence cases. He has written back – and here it is:
NOTE: there are a bunch of unusal characters in the email. I received the email in this format so I assume that something got scrambled in the transmission over the Web. It is being published as it was received.
Hello again,
Most of us know judges who from time to time have disagreements with their colleagues and know other judges who simply don’t like a judge they have to work with every day. There is nothing unusual about this – judges are people and it is unrealistic for anyone to expect that the day a person puts on a robe he or she is able to silently accept the human failings of others (or not have failings of their own).
But in Tennessee those disagreements rarely find their way to the public eye. Indeed, I have no memory of ever reading a Tennessee court opinion in which one judge criticized the intellect or integrity of another judge. We simply don’t do that "down here."
Things are a little different in Michigan – an "up there" state. Those of you who love the law (or lack a real life) already know that the Supreme Court in Michigan is polarized. But I admit that I had no idea that it had gotten downright ugly, as reflected in this memo dissenting from the election of the chief justice.
The Nebraska Supreme Court has held that a husband of a personal injury claimant who did not sign a release of his claim could maintain an action for loss of consortium arising from the injury even though his wife released her claim.
The Court said that the claim for loss of consortium was an independent claim and that there was no evidence that the release executed by the claimant released his claim for loss of consortium or gave his wife authority to release his claim.
The case is Simms v. Vicorp Restaurants, 272 Neb. 744 (2006). The link to the opinion itself does not work this morning (the Court’s website must be down) but here is a link to a summary of the opinion which has a link to full opinion.
That’s the name of a new report issued by Public Citizen. From the press release:
"Public Citizen reviewed publicly available information from 1990 to 2005 from the federal government’s National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB), which contains data on malpractice payments made on behalf of doctors as well as disciplinary actions taken against them by state medical boards or hospitals. According to the analysis, the total number of malpractice payments paid on behalf of doctors, with judgments and settlements, declined 15.4 percent between 1991 and 2005, and the number of payments per 100,000 people in the country declined more than 10 percent. In addition, the average payment for a medical malpractice verdict, adjusted for inflation, dropped eight percent in the same period. "
And this:
Can you imagine sitting in your battery-powered wheelchair and having it catch on fire?
That’s what the plaintiff alleged happened to her late father in this California case. It settled on the courthouse steps; the settlement is, of course, confidential.
The article reports that "in 2006, said court records, the company released a new product manual warning of the potential for hydrogen fire during recharging of the wheelchair’s battery."
I got a call today from a lawyer who asked about the method by which peremptory challenges are exercised in state court.
It is always a good idea to ask the trial judge at the pretrial conference or on the morning of trial how he or she handles peremptory challenges. But recall that Rule 47 of Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure was amended in 2003 to address these issues.
Here is the entire text of Rule 47:
I wrote two posts in the last year (here and here)about doctors who have been attacked by organized medicine for giving testimony on behalf of plaintiffs in medical malpractice lawsuits. The goal of these efforts is not only to punish the doctors for having the audacity to testify for a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case but also to discourage other doctors from testifying.
This weekend I received this comment to one post :
I’m a physician but I do not want to reveal my real name because this topic is so controversial. In the past I would infrequently give depositions or testify in malpractice cases. I think I worked on a total of 20 cases in about 15 years. I have worked both with defense and plaintiff’s attorneys but plaintiff work is easier to get so I did somewhat more of that. When I began to read about the horrendous ordeals some physicians went through when some board picked apart their testimony, I decided to give it up entirely.
Just one segment of an op-ed piece in today’s Tennessean: "How bad is medical malpractice? According to an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association by Dr. Barbara Starfield of Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, the third-leading cause of death in this country after heart problems and cancer is adverse reaction to medical treatment and medical mistakes."
Here is an interesting article from the New York Times that discusses a recent study of whether private practice lawyers or public defenders get better outcomes for citizens accused of crimes.
We have "Metoo" motions in Nashville. They usually occur when one defendant takes the time to draft and file a motion and memorandum and the co-defendants file papers that simply say "Metoo."
But a "Metoo" motion has a special meaning Up North. Or, should I say, it will from now on.
A judge in Hartford has permitted Ms Reed, a plaintiff suffering from PTSD, to have her dog "Metoo" with her in court during her trial. The Hartford Courant reports that the plaintiff maintains that "Metoo is a service dog that helps her through panic attacks and frees her from the use of medication. The dog is trained to stay close to Reed and lick her face when she becomes disoriented. Without the dog, Reed said, she might not have been able to get through the trial." [Emphasis added.]
