Good samaritan law

[m3racer]

I recently read on yahoo that the California state court has permitted a woman to file a claim against her co-worker. The plaintiff was in a motor vehicle accident and she became a quadriplegic after the co-worker moved her out of the vehicle in fear that the car may catch on fire. This just makes me sick!!!! What is wrong with our society? What is wrong with our courts? This is exactly the reason why I wouldn't help a victim in fear that I might get sued. In fact, this past year I refused to treat 2 patients in fear of a malpractice claim. The worst part was I knew I could help them. I also knew there would be inevitable complications. Although I felt confident I could manage the complications I knew there was a possibility that the patient could file a malpractice claim against me. I also know there are a ton of scumbag lawyers licking their chops to represent such a case.

[maat55]

In your case, is there no legal waver for the patient to sign after being told of the possible complications involved?

Can they even be sure that the injured was not quadriplegic(due to the accident) before the co-worker aided the other?

In any case, why these can see a courtroom is rediculous. Goes back to the fact that this country has too many lawyers feeding on it.

[Gjowers]

What you all do not understand is that anyone can sue anyone for anything they damn well want. Anyone with $100 or so can walk down to the courthouse and file a lawsuit. But understand the suing someone does not mean you will win or ever collect a dime. There are numerous procedures built into our system to protect people from meritless suits. First, there are procedural rules to kick them out before things even get started, second there are procedural rules for summary judgment and directed verdict that allow judges to dismiss cases that fail to meet legal requirements. Third there is the jury system itself. Fourth, there is the appellate process. Fifth, lawyers who file meritless cases (or defend meritless cases) can wind up with the costs and attorneys fees of the opposing side.

In nearly every state we permit a jury of our citizens to decide whether a criminal should be put to death. These same people are quite capable to determine whether a civil suit has merit. I've found that most of the time they get it right.

I am a lawyer. I represent people who have been injured by medical malpractice and dangerous pharmaceuticals. I've represented a number of people who expressed the same sentiments I see in the posts above, at least until it happens to them or someone they love. I've seen very proud, working people who never dreamed they would one day be receiving government assistance, but it happens through no fault of there own.

Further, probably the most important gatekeeper is the lawyer who takes the case. We turn down far, far more cases than we accept. Before I even accept a case it is reviewed and supported by medical experts. We simply cannot afford to accept meritless cases because once I take it, I am committed to it. That means my firm foots the bill for prosecution of that case which can, and frequently does,exceed 6 figures.

Many times, what you read in the press is not the whole story. Be careful about jumping to sweeping conclusions about our legal system or the legal profession based on anecdotes, forwarded emails, and a single story you read in the press.

Our system may not be perfect, but there is no better one anywhere.

[m3racer]

Oh give me a break!!! If that were the case than medical malpractice rates wouldn't be thru the roof!! You however did get one thing right. Anyone can file a malpractice claim for whatever reason. That's the problem! Do you realize how much time and $$$ that is spent to defend these cases. Not to mention the lost time spent practicing medicine. I have reviewed many cases from my colleagues and the vast majority have one thing in common. A greedy patient coupled with a sleazy lawyer trying to make money.

Also, your so called experts many times are not "experts" but instead are doctors with minimal knowledge of the facts involved. I assure you that many physicians would not step in as an "expert witness" to help sue another physician. Although there are cases where physicians have been negligent, the vast majority of these claims are frivalous. There are too many lawyers that will bend the truth so that they can pocket $$$ for themselves and the plaintiff. It just makes me sick!!!

[m3racer]

Originally Posted by Gjowers

Further, probably the most important gatekeeper is the lawyer who takes the case. We turn down far, far more cases than we accept. Before I even accept a case it is reviewed and supported by medical experts. We simply cannot afford to accept meritless cases because once I take it, I am committed to it. That means my firm foots the bill for prosecution of that case which can, and frequently does,exceed 6 figures.

Exactly, you and your buddies are in it for the money!!! I'm glad you freely admit that. Too bad lawyers like you will never understand that the vast majority of physicians being sued are practicing by the Hypocratic oath. I know I speak for myself and my colleagues. The physician is just as upset and deeply concerned when a patient has a less than optimal outcome.

[Gjowers]

M3racer, have you considered anger management?

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by Gjowers

suing someone does not mean you will win or ever collect a dime. There are numerous procedures built into our system to protect people from meritless suits.

I agree with the first sentence. I have to disagree with the second.

It is true that suing someone doesn't mean you'll win, but you still get to sue and cost the other party thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours to defend himself against frivolous, meritless cases.

I've been the victim (and yes, I would consider myself victimized) of two ridiculous malpractice cases in my career. Neither had any merit, but both still found attorneys willing to take the cases. Both found "experts" willing to testify against me for the right price. Sure, one case was dropped and the other went to trial but the jury found in my favor, but in the process, I lost many hours of work which totally disrupted my practice and my patients. I lost thousands of dollars in income. And I'm sure my insurance company spent many thousands of dollars to defend me.

What good came of all of that? Other than making a bunch of money for the attorneys, who benefitted? Not the people who brought the suits. Not my insurance company and most certainly not me.

In the end, these experiences drive up medical costs, not just because of malpractice costs but because doctors start doing unnecessary tests and procedures to cover their butts just in case anyone ever decides to question their care. Ask any doctor if he's ever ordered a test that he was sure wasn't needed. I doubt you'll find a single doctor who says no.

Gjowers, I'm glad you turn away cases that you feel are meritless, but you know as well as I do that not all attorneys behave that way. One of the cases I was involved in was turned down by 3 different attorneys before they finally found one who accepted the case. What does that tell you about the merit of the case?

[Gjowers]

Disneysteve: Don't think for a minute doctors are the only professionals subject to professional liability suits. Many lawyers are sued for malpractice but that does not generate much publicity.

While I cannot completely agree with your post, I've found you are frequently a voice of reason on this board. Would you be interested in reviewing medical/legal claims? I'm not kidding. PM me and I will send you my email address. The same goes for you, M3racer.

[disneysteve]

never mind

[Goldy1]

I guess we have to have a system where you can at least FILE a lawsuit on anything b/c who decides what is ok and not ok to sue for? I have never, knock on wood, been involved in any legal action.
I feel bad knowing people have to spend money to defend themselves from bogus suits.

Some people are crazy. I heard about this lady who got hit by a car. She was ok mostly, but the lawyer told her if she wanted to collect the big bucks she should subject herself to neck or type or surgery b/c it would help her case. She did and won.

I worked for an eye doctor(who has NEVER been sued) who referred one of our patients to a retinal specialist b/c the general opthalmologist I worked for thought there might be a problem with his retina. No he was not positive, just not sure.
So the pt went to see the retinal specialist and his retina was ok. His insurance would not pay for the office visit b/c there was no retinal damage diagnosis.
The pt filed a suit againt the md I worked for to pay for his office visit. I mean, can't you be glad you are ok and got on with it (his bill was like $200)?

[m3racer]

Originally Posted by Gjowers

Would you be interested in reviewing medical/legal claims? I'm not kidding. PM me and I will send you my email address. The same goes for you, M3racer.

Wow! You just don't get it! Absolutely not!

[maat55]

I look at things from the big picture. Why on earth does this country need 50k laws and a majority of the worlds lawyers practicing here. This country is plagued with lawsuits and laws.

No one can change my mind that lawyers are finding everyway they can to create mitigation. I wonder how many in congress are lawyers.

I've been in one small claims suit of which the defendant had a lawyer. I didn't encounter a lawyer seeking the truth, I encountered a sleezy attempt to discredit me. They lost.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by Goldy1

Some people are crazy. I heard about this lady who got hit by a car. She was ok mostly, but the lawyer told her if she wanted to collect the big bucks she should subject herself to neck or type or surgery b/c it would help her case. She did and won.

This reminded me of something. I don't do much personal injury work anymore, but I used to do quite a bit. I realized after a few years that I never seemed to see any patients who were injured in accidents in which they were at fault. The only people who seemed to get treatment and tests and therapy and meds were those who were not at fault (and, of course, suing the party at fault). Now surely folks who cause an accident get hurt, too. Where were all of them? Most were probably home with some Advil and a heating pad. Or maybe they got checked out and the ER, found to have no serious injuries and went on their way. They didn't make a big deal out of it. I can't help but wonder how many of the personal injury cases are bogus, just being played up to make the case look good.

Back to the original topic - Good Samaritan laws.

I absolutely think people who stop to help in an emergency should be protected from litigation unless there is clear evidence that they did something grossly wrong or negligent to worsen the situation. Sure, pulling someone out of a burning car could injure them, but it sure beats leaving them in a burning car.

[MiikeB]

I agree many claims are ridiculous.

A coworker recently had to go to court because he was being sued. A person ran a red light, hit my coworker, and was given the ticket/ found at fault (red light camera). He then sued my coworker for injuries claiming he should have seen the them running the red light. The judge threw it out in the first 5 minutes but my coworker still had to pay a lawyer a few hundred dollars and take time from work.

[cptacek]

My mom almost died after a hysterectomy while she was in the recovery room. If my sisters and I hadn't been in there, she would have. She was bleeding internally and when we pointed out the blood pressure was REALLY low (like 80 over 30) the nurse turned off the monitor. She almost stopped breathing and couldn't stay awake. I ran to get a nurse and two sisters yelled at her to wake up, and they had to operate again so they could find out what was wrong.

I asked dad later if they were going to sue. He said no. People make mistakes, he said. She is ok and though she had a tougher recovery, she came out of it. I would say this probably was a "good case". I'm proud of them for not trying to get rich off a mistake.

[MoneyTrev]

Originally Posted by cptacek

My mom almost died after a hysterectomy while she was in the recovery room. If my sisters and I hadn't been in there, she would have. She was bleeding internally and when we pointed out the blood pressure was REALLY low (like 80 over 30) the nurse turned off the monitor. She almost stopped breathing and couldn't stay awake. I ran to get a nurse and two sisters yelled at her to wake up, and they had to operate again so they could find out what was wrong.

I asked dad later if they were going to sue. He said no. People make mistakes, he said. She is ok and though she had a tougher recovery, she came out of it. I would say this probably was a "good case". I'm proud of them for not trying to get rich off a mistake.

Wow. Great story.

The thing with today's society regarding to this is that people just want to sue to have a chance to get $$$ and fix the problem at the same time. What they're not realizing is that if they don't win, they lose a bunch of $$. Do they treat this like the lottery?

There were countless amounts of times where I felt like I needed to sue someone but I didn't because it just wasn't worth it.

[m3racer]

Originally Posted by cptacek

My mom almost died after a hysterectomy while she was in the recovery room. If my sisters and I hadn't been in there, she would have. She was bleeding internally and when we pointed out the blood pressure was REALLY low (like 80 over 30) the nurse turned off the monitor. She almost stopped breathing and couldn't stay awake. I ran to get a nurse and two sisters yelled at her to wake up, and they had to operate again so they could find out what was wrong.

I asked dad later if they were going to sue. He said no. People make mistakes, he said. She is ok and though she had a tougher recovery, she came out of it. I would say this probably was a "good case". I'm proud of them for not trying to get rich off a mistake.

I disagree with you. Where was the mistake? You are assuming that the OBGYN did not check for hemostasis prior to closing the wound. Re-bleeding from the wound can and commonly occurs for various reasons. This is exactly what I'm talking about. The lay person with no medical or surgical skills just makes plain assumptions. BTW, I'm glad your mom is ok.

[Gjowers]

Originally Posted by cptacek

My mom almost died after a hysterectomy while she was in the recovery room. If my sisters and I hadn't been in there, she would have. She was bleeding internally and when we pointed out the blood pressure was REALLY low (like 80 over 30) the nurse turned off the monitor. She almost stopped breathing and couldn't stay awake. I ran to get a nurse and two sisters yelled at her to wake up, and they had to operate again so they could find out what was wrong.

I asked dad later if they were going to sue. He said no. People make mistakes, he said. She is ok and though she had a tougher recovery, she came out of it. I would say this probably was a "good case". I'm proud of them for not trying to get rich off a mistake.

No, it is not a "good case." They would be entitled to nothing under our law. Proving negligence in any state in this country requires proof of 4 essential elements, without them, your case gets tossed out by the judge in the early stages of litigation. You must prove: 1) duty, 2) breach of that duty, 3) damages, and 4) proximate cause. Based on the facts you posted, your mom had no damages. Near misses are non compensable. At best she had a tougher recovery.

If she had died, or suffered brain damage from the blood loss, that might be a "good case," provided the other 3 elements are present, and I'm not sure they are. Surgery has known complications. Just because there is a bad outcome doesn't necessarily mean there was negligence. There must have been what's called a deviation from the standard of care. The essentially means sub-standard care.

You don't want to have a good case. Believe me, people with "good cases" have suffered tragedy. You don't want any part of that.

[Gjowers]

Originally Posted by MiikeB

The judge threw it out in the first 5 minutes but my coworker still had to pay a lawyer a few hundred dollars and take time from work.

The system worked. That's too bad they had to pay for the lawyer to represent them and miss time from work. A better outcome would have been for the judge to have taxed costs to the other party. Whether that is available depends on state law.

Like I said in my initial post, our system is not perfect, but it's about the best around.

[disneysteve]

Originally Posted by cptacek

She was bleeding internally and when we pointed out the blood pressure was REALLY low (like 80 over 30) the nurse turned off the monitor.

Originally Posted by m3racer

I disagree with you. Where was the mistake?

The mistake (if there was one) doesn't sound like it was made by the doctor but rather by the recovery room nurse. When alerted by someone that the BP was low, turning off the monitor hardly seems like the appropriate response.

That said, I agree with Gjowers that there probably was no case here since there was no damage. Thankfully, she made a full recovery.

We had a situation a number of years ago. Our van spontaneously caught fire in our driveway. The van was destroyed along with everything in it, the driveway, an outside light fixture, part of the lawn, the garage door, etc. An engineering investigative team examined the wreckage and determined that the fire was caused by a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Just out of curiosity, I gave my attorney a call to ask if there might be a case worth pursuing. He said no. Why? Because nobody was injured and our insurance covered all of the damages. We had no loss to sue for.