sounds like the trial wasn\’t going too good for the plaintiff, who didn\’t know the potential side effects of having his stomach stapled to the size of a dime was greater than taking the average sugar pill. Odds are of the trial was not going in his favor, or his attorneys wouldn\’t have begged for a mistrial.
It would have really saved Charlie allot of time if they had explained this was actually surgery, there were actual risks, and he should consider other treatment alternatives before risky surgery…something tells me he just didn\’t listen. But what the heck; he has his dream job, makes millions of dollars, and got a couple extra weeks of rest after the surgery, yet he\’s still cranky about it for some reason. Sounds like a Democract.
More than likely the mistrial was declared because the two (defendant) doctors provided aid to the stricken juror. That action, while humanitarian, left open the possibility of a tainted jury if they were found not negligent in the care of the plaintiff. Think about it: would you be able to drop the hammer on them after witnessing them in action in a life-saving endeavor during a trial that questions the medical competence of these doctors? Given the circumstances, the judge made the right decision.
Let me ask you, under what circumstances is a surgeon liability in your opinion? Obviously, there are dangers from any surgery, but what if the surgeon did the surgery drunk…would that give a person the right to sue? Say the surgeon amputated the wrong arm? Should they pay for that? It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of a doctor you\’ve never even met. Sounds reasonable to me.
ya got me Jeff…I wasn\’t in the operating room, but I\’ve seen no allegation of a drunken doctor, or chopping off the wrong limb. What I do know is a highly risky surgery was undertaken, the patient went into an approx 2 week \’coma\’
(per his claim) and he has recovered; claims he has the job of his dreams…perhaps I\’m too cynical, but I would like to think he would be grateful he survived a risky surgery where it didn\’t go too well. Please remember, Jeff, doctors don\’t defend these things if they did something wrong; they instruct their med mal to settle out.
The doc\’s obviously feel strong about their case, doesn\’t make them right, but since it doesn\’t appear they operated drunk, and Charlie appears to have his limbs, I find you point of view to be, um, stupid.
But I recognize your right to be stupid, and your right to sue your doctor if he or she does something stupid.
It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of the plaintiff you\’ve never even met. Your sound like an entitlement seeking, bleeding heart lib. Too bad.
Steve…when did I take the side of the plaintiff? Give me one example. Funny that you assumed I was taking the plaintiff\’s side on a post about how I shouldn\’t be assuming. Try reading the posts again, and hopefully you can post something of relevence.
Vernal,
Um…Sorry the analogy was lost on you. I\’ll try to dumb it down for it for you.
If (notice the word if) these doctors acted in an improper way, they can be held liable. Just like if we went into a contract and I didn\’t hold up my end, you would sue me. If these doctors performed the surgery and didn\’t follow the proper procedure, and as a result caused a two week coma, they should be held liable. If they did everything they were supposed to do, and the surgery just went bad or the patient didn\’t do what he was supposed to do, they are not. Do you see how that works? When you don\’t follow the rules, you get punished.
Wait, that might be kind of hard for you. Try this one…if the speed limit is 55 and you drive 65, a police officer can give you a ticket for not following the rules. If you\’re a doctor and you don\’t follow the surgical protocols (don\’t worry, that\’s just a fancy word for rules), you can be held liable.
looks like you\’re a bit confused, but that\’s ok, you sound like a bleeding heart, which means you think with your feelings. Nice of you to offer to use smaller words for us; looks like you probably have problems with the bigger ones.
It looked pretty clear like you were lining up behind the plaintiff, but heck, I just read it; I don\’t know how you \’feel\’. Sleep easy, though, the plaintiff didn\’t lose a leg, arm, or other appendage; it doesn\’t look like drinking was involved.
You remind me of the kooks who argue with someone who is pro-life with comments like \”well, what if your daughter is impregnated by a space alien, you\’d want her to have that baby?!?\”
Jeff, calm down; it appears no one is trying to take anyone\’s right to sue away in this column. Some of us question why there is a large contingency who pretend that anytime something goes wrong, \’someone has to pay\’. Sounds like you are one of those people, Jeff. It\’s ok to take responsibility for one\’s self; I know, that\’s a big word, but I think you can handle it.
See, Chuck could be telling the world of the real dangers of this surgery, while he talks about how blessed he feels that he survived, how things have turned out so well for him. But instead, we get to read about his little lawsuit here, in the IJ, not exactly People magazine, but maybe he doesn\’t want it too publicized.
You have to admit, if the case was really going well for Chuck, odds are he wouldn\’t have let his attorneys call for a mistrial.
Sometimes we try to \’read between the lines\’ when we don\’t have all the facts. Nope, I wasn\’t at the trial, didn\’t perform the surgery, don\’t know if Chuck took the proper precautions or even showed up as a drunk patient for his own surgery. No, the best we can do is try to guess what really happened.
Now about the lost arm and drunk doctor thing, that was a really stupid argument, Jeff. Sorry.
I\’m not sure if I follow you, but you indicate the doctors where speeding over the limit when they cut off Charlies arm while they were drunk? Or did you say if before they got the ticket or cut off the arm? I\’ve lost track, but these guys should be in jail.
Man, you\’re right, Charlie should sue those doctors; I don\’t want them operating on anyone else while they speed and drive drunk. Thanks for setting us straight. That analogy thing is tricky, looks like some others had the same misunderstanding as little ole me. What we had was failure to communicate! Stupid is as stupid does…them doctors must have really be stupid to get drunk and then drive while doing the surgery.
You did leave out the anology of what would it be like if they used an old rusty lawnmower blade to make the incision. That would be bad. However, if they used a relatively new one, ya know, not rusty, and washed it with soap, then I don\’t think they should be sued. That\’s just my opinion. Thank God these guys were in that courtroom, though. They could have saved that jurors life. Ya know, sometimes we get put into positions so we can make a difference. Jeff, you\’re one of those people, you\’ve made a difference for me. Thanks.
Jesus…I wasn\’t saying they were as bad as a surgeon who worked on someone drunk. The point was that everytime there is an article on this website about someone suing (for any reason), people come out and say the person doesn\’t deserve to sue regardless of the circumstances.
What I was asking was for one of you to give me an example of a situation where a person would have the right to sue in your opinion. You say I\’m a bleeding heart lib because I think if a doctor does something wrong he should be held liable? Where is your rant about the personal responsibility of the doctor?
So, just so I\’m clear, if you went in for surgery and the doctor almost killed you because he used the wrong clamp, or he left a pad in you, or whatever, you wouldn\’t sue? Is that what your saying?
Your last comment actually made sense though. I agree you should be able to sue but you should also take responsibility for your own actions. Doctors if having done everything right should not be held hostage because of unforeseen complications. I am sure of a few things:
1. They informed him ahead of time of the dangers and that exercise and diet would be safer.
2. This would have been settled out of court if the doctors actually made an error. When you have insurance why fight a claim if you know you are liable and have insurance to pay it?
3. The case was probably not going so well for the plaintiff and that is why his lawyer argued for a mistrial.
4. You have a small brain the size of a marble that has been damaged by tree sap from over squeezing the maple in your front yard.
By the way what if the doctors were attempting psychic surgery but failed to clean their finger nails causing a deadly infection.
Ross, I don\’t know that the doctors did anything wrong. I\’m not saying the doctors did anything wrong. I am not \”on the side\” of the plaintiff. These doctors may have followed all the protocols, they may have done excellent surgery. The reason for the coma may be due to complications out of the doctors control.
My point is that IF, I say again, IF they didn\’t act responsibly, they should be accountable. That\’s it. If the fault lies with the plaintiff or some uncontrollable situation the case should be dismissed. But what happens on this site is that when anyone sues, for any reason, no matter what has happened, it is assumed they are just out for money they don\’t deserve.
I just contacted both the plaintiff and the defendants, and the defendants said they did nothing wrong. I had a hard time understanding the plaintiff, he refused to put down his pastrami sandwich while he spoke on the phone.
The defendants said they explained the dangers of the surgery, and even pointed out how inexpensive an exercise bike could be in comparision, but before the plaintiff could read the entire section of warning language, he spilled mustard and mayo from his sub sandwich, which was described as a triple meat, hot steak and cheese with extra jalapeno, which smeared the ink.
Medical Malpractice law suits are the #1 reason Healthcare costs are so high. In additon to camps on losses in certain states, I think the government or assigned outside agency should invesitagte and approve or decline reasonable means to sue a healthcare professional.
Medical Malpractice law suits are the #1 reason Healthcare costs are so high. In additon to caps on losses in certain states, I think the government or assigned outside agency should invesitagte and approve or decline reasonable means to sue a healthcare professional.
No MD here,
I have to disagree with you on this point. The total of all medmal claims / payouts only account for roughtly 1% of the annual premiums brought in by medmal carriers. So, to say that it\’s the #1 reason med insurance is so high isn\’t correct.
Caps are also not going to help. The problem with frivilous lawsuites is with lawyers that will take any case and settle them for 5 or 10K a piece, take their fees and move on to the next. The high damage claims are usually with merit, and capping claims is only going to hurt those that have been seriously injured by negligence.
the parties could meet on Oprah and discuss their differences. Oprah could be the mediator; the audience could vote for whoever they believe. Commercials could offset legal fees.
1. Med mal cases do not often settle out of court and almost always go to trial regardless of the merit of the case.
2. Why must those of you who do not agree with this case or the right to sue in any case resort to name-calling and insults in order to make your point. Perhaps you are not capable of making an intelligent point on a mature level?
everytime the argument comes up about caps for med mal cases, the plaintiff bar argues the average trial verdict is not that high and dollars paid via verdict only amount to a small percentage of med mal premiums.
So it\’s a very mysterious thing…where is all that other money going?
That\’s right, it\’s goes to out of court settlements!
So maybe you should get it together before you take sides.
Do you know how many more years cases would be backed up if they all went to court? No, didn\’t think you did.
Juror X had learned of Charlie Weis attempt at the dog food diet before he tried surgery…from the trial transcript:
It was right after the Super Bowl, and after eating us out of house, home, and a couple refrigerator racks. My wife told me Notre Dame had called, but I couldn\’t find the phone under all the twinkie wrappers and McDonald\’s cartons on the floor; I figured who cares, who would want to coach at the college level after the pro\’s anyway. I was getting hungry again, so I went out for some snacks and necessities. The dogs were getting whiny as I hadn\’t fed them, so I was in Wal-Mart; I had one cart full of Sam\’s brand pizzas and muffins, and I had a second cart to load several large bags of PXXXXX dog chow and was in line to check out. A woman behind me asked if I had any dogs; I thought \’yeah lady, I just buy this stuff for fun\’. But I tried to be polite, but she continued to pry, and I was feeling a bit crabby so on impulse, I told her no, I was starting dog food diet again (brand name withheld, but one of the namebrands), although I probably shouldn\’t because I ended up in the hospital last time. I opened the end of the bag and took out a handful and started eating the stuff. I was too hungover to taste anything, but it wasn\’t half bad. I embellished it abit and told her for meals, I sometimes pour beef broth over it and pretend it\’s roast beef with gravy. Continuing, I told the nosy twit I\’d lost 50 pounds the last time I tried the diet, but I awakened in an intensive care unit with tubes coming out of most of my body and IV\’s in both arms. Her eyes about bugged out of her head.
I went on and on with the bogus diet story and she was totally buying it. I told her that it was an easy, inexpensive diet and that the way it works is to load your pockets or purse with nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The package said the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a tall guy behind her. I was already on my second handful of nuggets, and a couple people behind me asked if they could try them and did. No one complained about the taste, and the tall guy even said it was pretty good.
Horrified, the lady asked if something in the dog food had poisoned me and was that why I ended up in the hospital.
I said no…..I\’d been sitting in the street licking my butt when a car hit me. I then decided against the dog food diet and called the surgeon
Can we please STOP seeing this story posted all over the place? It\’s already gotten old. Original ideas and thoughts are appreciated. I have read this \”story\” about 4 or 5 times already. It doesn\’t get any funnier the 2nd… or 3rd… time.
Juror X had learned of Charlie Weis attempt at the dog food diet before he tried surgery…from the trial transcript:
It was right after the Super Bowl, and after eating us out of house, home, and a couple refrigerator racks. My wife told me Notre Dame had called, but I couldn\’t find the phone under all the twinkie wrappers and McDonald\’s cartons on the floor; I figured who cares, who would want to coach at the college level after the pro\’s anyway. I was getting hungry again, so I went out for some snacks and necessities. The dogs were getting whiny as I hadn\’t fed them, so I was in Wal-Mart; I had one cart full of Sam\’s brand pizzas and muffins, and I had a second cart to load several large bags of PXXXXX dog chow and was in line to check out. A woman behind me asked if I had any dogs; I thought \’yeah lady, I just buy this stuff for fun\’. But I tried to be polite, but she continued to pry, and I was feeling a bit crabby so on impulse, I told her no, I was starting dog food diet again (brand name withheld, but one of the namebrands), although I probably shouldn\’t because I ended up in the hospital last time. I opened the end of the bag and took out a handful and started eating the stuff. I was too hungover to taste anything, but it wasn\’t half bad. I embellished it abit and told her for meals, I sometimes pour beef broth over it and pretend it\’s roast beef with gravy. Continuing, I told the nosy twit I\’d lost 50 pounds the last time I tried the diet, but I awakened in an intensive care unit with tubes coming out of most of my body and IV\’s in both arms. Her eyes about bugged out of her head.
I went on and on with the bogus diet story and she was totally buying it. I told her that it was an easy, inexpensive diet and that the way it works is to load your pockets or purse with nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The package said the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a tall guy behind her. I was already on my second handful of nuggets, and a couple people behind me asked if they could try them and did. No one complained about the taste, and the tall guy even said it was pretty good.
Horrified, the lady asked if something in the dog food had poisoned me and was that why I ended up in the hospital.
I said no…..I\’d been sitting in the street licking my butt when a car hit me. I then decided against the dog food diet and called the surgeon
We need someone who can cross the breach between Steve O. and Not Really; I believe I am that man. I can work with the other side, and I offer my services as future president to bring these two together for a big bear hug. I am not a divider; what we need is someone who can fix Washington and work with both sides; I can demonstrate my amazing abilities by doing just that, now, with Steve O. and Not Really.
PS: can we do it on Oprah? the ratings will be great!
sounds like the trial wasn\’t going too good for the plaintiff, who didn\’t know the potential side effects of having his stomach stapled to the size of a dime was greater than taking the average sugar pill. Odds are of the trial was not going in his favor, or his attorneys wouldn\’t have begged for a mistrial.
It would have really saved Charlie allot of time if they had explained this was actually surgery, there were actual risks, and he should consider other treatment alternatives before risky surgery…something tells me he just didn\’t listen. But what the heck; he has his dream job, makes millions of dollars, and got a couple extra weeks of rest after the surgery, yet he\’s still cranky about it for some reason. Sounds like a Democract.
Was his moaning during the testimony because of what he heard?
Truthfully, I wonder why they would declare a mistrial and not continue. The juror became sick and I would imagine there were alternates.
Ad,
It\’s because of the jury having a hard time being objective after watching the defendents attempt to save the jury member\’s life.
More than likely the mistrial was declared because the two (defendant) doctors provided aid to the stricken juror. That action, while humanitarian, left open the possibility of a tainted jury if they were found not negligent in the care of the plaintiff. Think about it: would you be able to drop the hammer on them after witnessing them in action in a life-saving endeavor during a trial that questions the medical competence of these doctors? Given the circumstances, the judge made the right decision.
Given the high excitement of a med-mal proceeding, my assumption was that the juror was moaning due to boredom and was about ready to pass out…
What he probably needed was a good cup of coffee… like he could have had if he\’d ordered from http://www.Javamo.com!
Sorry, a shameless plug, but they truly do have some of the best coffee I\’ve tasted!
Vernal,
Let me ask you, under what circumstances is a surgeon liability in your opinion? Obviously, there are dangers from any surgery, but what if the surgeon did the surgery drunk…would that give a person the right to sue? Say the surgeon amputated the wrong arm? Should they pay for that? It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of a doctor you\’ve never even met. Sounds reasonable to me.
ya got me Jeff…I wasn\’t in the operating room, but I\’ve seen no allegation of a drunken doctor, or chopping off the wrong limb. What I do know is a highly risky surgery was undertaken, the patient went into an approx 2 week \’coma\’
(per his claim) and he has recovered; claims he has the job of his dreams…perhaps I\’m too cynical, but I would like to think he would be grateful he survived a risky surgery where it didn\’t go too well. Please remember, Jeff, doctors don\’t defend these things if they did something wrong; they instruct their med mal to settle out.
The doc\’s obviously feel strong about their case, doesn\’t make them right, but since it doesn\’t appear they operated drunk, and Charlie appears to have his limbs, I find you point of view to be, um, stupid.
But I recognize your right to be stupid, and your right to sue your doctor if he or she does something stupid.
Jeff-
It\’s funny, you have no details about the surgery, no details about what care he received after the surgery, no details about what he was told, but somehow you\’re taking the side of the plaintiff you\’ve never even met. Your sound like an entitlement seeking, bleeding heart lib. Too bad.
Steve…when did I take the side of the plaintiff? Give me one example. Funny that you assumed I was taking the plaintiff\’s side on a post about how I shouldn\’t be assuming. Try reading the posts again, and hopefully you can post something of relevence.
Vernal,
Um…Sorry the analogy was lost on you. I\’ll try to dumb it down for it for you.
If (notice the word if) these doctors acted in an improper way, they can be held liable. Just like if we went into a contract and I didn\’t hold up my end, you would sue me. If these doctors performed the surgery and didn\’t follow the proper procedure, and as a result caused a two week coma, they should be held liable. If they did everything they were supposed to do, and the surgery just went bad or the patient didn\’t do what he was supposed to do, they are not. Do you see how that works? When you don\’t follow the rules, you get punished.
Wait, that might be kind of hard for you. Try this one…if the speed limit is 55 and you drive 65, a police officer can give you a ticket for not following the rules. If you\’re a doctor and you don\’t follow the surgical protocols (don\’t worry, that\’s just a fancy word for rules), you can be held liable.
I hope this clears it up for you.
Jeff
looks like you\’re a bit confused, but that\’s ok, you sound like a bleeding heart, which means you think with your feelings. Nice of you to offer to use smaller words for us; looks like you probably have problems with the bigger ones.
It looked pretty clear like you were lining up behind the plaintiff, but heck, I just read it; I don\’t know how you \’feel\’. Sleep easy, though, the plaintiff didn\’t lose a leg, arm, or other appendage; it doesn\’t look like drinking was involved.
You remind me of the kooks who argue with someone who is pro-life with comments like \”well, what if your daughter is impregnated by a space alien, you\’d want her to have that baby?!?\”
Jeff, calm down; it appears no one is trying to take anyone\’s right to sue away in this column. Some of us question why there is a large contingency who pretend that anytime something goes wrong, \’someone has to pay\’. Sounds like you are one of those people, Jeff. It\’s ok to take responsibility for one\’s self; I know, that\’s a big word, but I think you can handle it.
See, Chuck could be telling the world of the real dangers of this surgery, while he talks about how blessed he feels that he survived, how things have turned out so well for him. But instead, we get to read about his little lawsuit here, in the IJ, not exactly People magazine, but maybe he doesn\’t want it too publicized.
You have to admit, if the case was really going well for Chuck, odds are he wouldn\’t have let his attorneys call for a mistrial.
Sometimes we try to \’read between the lines\’ when we don\’t have all the facts. Nope, I wasn\’t at the trial, didn\’t perform the surgery, don\’t know if Chuck took the proper precautions or even showed up as a drunk patient for his own surgery. No, the best we can do is try to guess what really happened.
Now about the lost arm and drunk doctor thing, that was a really stupid argument, Jeff. Sorry.
Jeff
I\’m not sure if I follow you, but you indicate the doctors where speeding over the limit when they cut off Charlies arm while they were drunk? Or did you say if before they got the ticket or cut off the arm? I\’ve lost track, but these guys should be in jail.
Man, you\’re right, Charlie should sue those doctors; I don\’t want them operating on anyone else while they speed and drive drunk. Thanks for setting us straight. That analogy thing is tricky, looks like some others had the same misunderstanding as little ole me. What we had was failure to communicate! Stupid is as stupid does…them doctors must have really be stupid to get drunk and then drive while doing the surgery.
You did leave out the anology of what would it be like if they used an old rusty lawnmower blade to make the incision. That would be bad. However, if they used a relatively new one, ya know, not rusty, and washed it with soap, then I don\’t think they should be sued. That\’s just my opinion. Thank God these guys were in that courtroom, though. They could have saved that jurors life. Ya know, sometimes we get put into positions so we can make a difference. Jeff, you\’re one of those people, you\’ve made a difference for me. Thanks.
Jesus…I wasn\’t saying they were as bad as a surgeon who worked on someone drunk. The point was that everytime there is an article on this website about someone suing (for any reason), people come out and say the person doesn\’t deserve to sue regardless of the circumstances.
What I was asking was for one of you to give me an example of a situation where a person would have the right to sue in your opinion. You say I\’m a bleeding heart lib because I think if a doctor does something wrong he should be held liable? Where is your rant about the personal responsibility of the doctor?
So, just so I\’m clear, if you went in for surgery and the doctor almost killed you because he used the wrong clamp, or he left a pad in you, or whatever, you wouldn\’t sue? Is that what your saying?
Your last comment actually made sense though. I agree you should be able to sue but you should also take responsibility for your own actions. Doctors if having done everything right should not be held hostage because of unforeseen complications. I am sure of a few things:
1. They informed him ahead of time of the dangers and that exercise and diet would be safer.
2. This would have been settled out of court if the doctors actually made an error. When you have insurance why fight a claim if you know you are liable and have insurance to pay it?
3. The case was probably not going so well for the plaintiff and that is why his lawyer argued for a mistrial.
4. You have a small brain the size of a marble that has been damaged by tree sap from over squeezing the maple in your front yard.
By the way what if the doctors were attempting psychic surgery but failed to clean their finger nails causing a deadly infection.
Jeff, how do you know the doctors did anything wrong?
Is it at least as equally likely the doctors did nothing wrong?
Ross, I don\’t know that the doctors did anything wrong. I\’m not saying the doctors did anything wrong. I am not \”on the side\” of the plaintiff. These doctors may have followed all the protocols, they may have done excellent surgery. The reason for the coma may be due to complications out of the doctors control.
My point is that IF, I say again, IF they didn\’t act responsibly, they should be accountable. That\’s it. If the fault lies with the plaintiff or some uncontrollable situation the case should be dismissed. But what happens on this site is that when anyone sues, for any reason, no matter what has happened, it is assumed they are just out for money they don\’t deserve.
I\’ve seen allot of people dancing on this website everytime Walmart gets sued…
just seems wierd his own attorney wanted the do over on the trial.
I just contacted both the plaintiff and the defendants, and the defendants said they did nothing wrong. I had a hard time understanding the plaintiff, he refused to put down his pastrami sandwich while he spoke on the phone.
The defendants said they explained the dangers of the surgery, and even pointed out how inexpensive an exercise bike could be in comparision, but before the plaintiff could read the entire section of warning language, he spilled mustard and mayo from his sub sandwich, which was described as a triple meat, hot steak and cheese with extra jalapeno, which smeared the ink.
Jared from Subway refused comment.
Medical Malpractice law suits are the #1 reason Healthcare costs are so high. In additon to camps on losses in certain states, I think the government or assigned outside agency should invesitagte and approve or decline reasonable means to sue a healthcare professional.
Medical Malpractice law suits are the #1 reason Healthcare costs are so high. In additon to caps on losses in certain states, I think the government or assigned outside agency should invesitagte and approve or decline reasonable means to sue a healthcare professional.
No MD here,
I have to disagree with you on this point. The total of all medmal claims / payouts only account for roughtly 1% of the annual premiums brought in by medmal carriers. So, to say that it\’s the #1 reason med insurance is so high isn\’t correct.
Caps are also not going to help. The problem with frivilous lawsuites is with lawyers that will take any case and settle them for 5 or 10K a piece, take their fees and move on to the next. The high damage claims are usually with merit, and capping claims is only going to hurt those that have been seriously injured by negligence.
Anytime anyone gets sued it is ALWAYS ABOUT THE MONEY. If it wasn\’t then why sue? Oh what, for closure?
Steve,
What sort of conflict resolution would you suggest if not to sue?
the parties could meet on Oprah and discuss their differences. Oprah could be the mediator; the audience could vote for whoever they believe. Commercials could offset legal fees.
Please learn to read, obtain your GED, ask mommy to read for you, etc.. I NEVER mentioned they couldn\’t sue.
Wow, somebody needs a hug. Go luck with those rage issues Stevie.
If Charlie would only go back to that dog food diet he mentioned in another article, all this lawsuit and surgery stuff would not be necessary.
1. Med mal cases do not often settle out of court and almost always go to trial regardless of the merit of the case.
2. Why must those of you who do not agree with this case or the right to sue in any case resort to name-calling and insults in order to make your point. Perhaps you are not capable of making an intelligent point on a mature level?
revdjg:
where do you get your facts? Larry King?
everytime the argument comes up about caps for med mal cases, the plaintiff bar argues the average trial verdict is not that high and dollars paid via verdict only amount to a small percentage of med mal premiums.
So it\’s a very mysterious thing…where is all that other money going?
That\’s right, it\’s goes to out of court settlements!
So maybe you should get it together before you take sides.
Do you know how many more years cases would be backed up if they all went to court? No, didn\’t think you did.
Juror X had learned of Charlie Weis attempt at the dog food diet before he tried surgery…from the trial transcript:
It was right after the Super Bowl, and after eating us out of house, home, and a couple refrigerator racks. My wife told me Notre Dame had called, but I couldn\’t find the phone under all the twinkie wrappers and McDonald\’s cartons on the floor; I figured who cares, who would want to coach at the college level after the pro\’s anyway. I was getting hungry again, so I went out for some snacks and necessities. The dogs were getting whiny as I hadn\’t fed them, so I was in Wal-Mart; I had one cart full of Sam\’s brand pizzas and muffins, and I had a second cart to load several large bags of PXXXXX dog chow and was in line to check out. A woman behind me asked if I had any dogs; I thought \’yeah lady, I just buy this stuff for fun\’. But I tried to be polite, but she continued to pry, and I was feeling a bit crabby so on impulse, I told her no, I was starting dog food diet again (brand name withheld, but one of the namebrands), although I probably shouldn\’t because I ended up in the hospital last time. I opened the end of the bag and took out a handful and started eating the stuff. I was too hungover to taste anything, but it wasn\’t half bad. I embellished it abit and told her for meals, I sometimes pour beef broth over it and pretend it\’s roast beef with gravy. Continuing, I told the nosy twit I\’d lost 50 pounds the last time I tried the diet, but I awakened in an intensive care unit with tubes coming out of most of my body and IV\’s in both arms. Her eyes about bugged out of her head.
I went on and on with the bogus diet story and she was totally buying it. I told her that it was an easy, inexpensive diet and that the way it works is to load your pockets or purse with nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The package said the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a tall guy behind her. I was already on my second handful of nuggets, and a couple people behind me asked if they could try them and did. No one complained about the taste, and the tall guy even said it was pretty good.
Horrified, the lady asked if something in the dog food had poisoned me and was that why I ended up in the hospital.
I said no…..I\’d been sitting in the street licking my butt when a car hit me. I then decided against the dog food diet and called the surgeon
Can we please STOP seeing this story posted all over the place? It\’s already gotten old. Original ideas and thoughts are appreciated. I have read this \”story\” about 4 or 5 times already. It doesn\’t get any funnier the 2nd… or 3rd… time.
Juror X had learned of Charlie Weis attempt at the dog food diet before he tried surgery…from the trial transcript:
It was right after the Super Bowl, and after eating us out of house, home, and a couple refrigerator racks. My wife told me Notre Dame had called, but I couldn\’t find the phone under all the twinkie wrappers and McDonald\’s cartons on the floor; I figured who cares, who would want to coach at the college level after the pro\’s anyway. I was getting hungry again, so I went out for some snacks and necessities. The dogs were getting whiny as I hadn\’t fed them, so I was in Wal-Mart; I had one cart full of Sam\’s brand pizzas and muffins, and I had a second cart to load several large bags of PXXXXX dog chow and was in line to check out. A woman behind me asked if I had any dogs; I thought \’yeah lady, I just buy this stuff for fun\’. But I tried to be polite, but she continued to pry, and I was feeling a bit crabby so on impulse, I told her no, I was starting dog food diet again (brand name withheld, but one of the namebrands), although I probably shouldn\’t because I ended up in the hospital last time. I opened the end of the bag and took out a handful and started eating the stuff. I was too hungover to taste anything, but it wasn\’t half bad. I embellished it abit and told her for meals, I sometimes pour beef broth over it and pretend it\’s roast beef with gravy. Continuing, I told the nosy twit I\’d lost 50 pounds the last time I tried the diet, but I awakened in an intensive care unit with tubes coming out of most of my body and IV\’s in both arms. Her eyes about bugged out of her head.
I went on and on with the bogus diet story and she was totally buying it. I told her that it was an easy, inexpensive diet and that the way it works is to load your pockets or purse with nuggets and simply eat one or two every time you feel hungry. The package said the food is nutritionally complete so I was going to try it again.
I have to mention here that practically everyone in the line was by now enthralled with my story, particularly a tall guy behind her. I was already on my second handful of nuggets, and a couple people behind me asked if they could try them and did. No one complained about the taste, and the tall guy even said it was pretty good.
Horrified, the lady asked if something in the dog food had poisoned me and was that why I ended up in the hospital.
I said no…..I\’d been sitting in the street licking my butt when a car hit me. I then decided against the dog food diet and called the surgeon
Steve, maybe a hug isn\’t all you need. You\’re just a peach…again, good luck with those issues.
We need someone who can cross the breach between Steve O. and Not Really; I believe I am that man. I can work with the other side, and I offer my services as future president to bring these two together for a big bear hug. I am not a divider; what we need is someone who can fix Washington and work with both sides; I can demonstrate my amazing abilities by doing just that, now, with Steve O. and Not Really.
PS: can we do it on Oprah? the ratings will be great!