goemaw.com
General Discussion => Essentially Flyertalk => Topic started by: Kat Kid on January 26, 2011, 06:41:54 PM
-
AMIRIGHT?
-
hope this thread breaks out into go to moves to get out of jury duty.
-
I am chomping at the bit for the opportunity to serve on a jury.
Have never had the chance.
-
sdmom and sdaunt were on the same jury of a murder trial. isn't that weird? seems like it is.
-
sdmom and sdaunt were on the same jury of a murder trial. isn't that weird? seems like it is.
I would KILL to serve on a murder trial.
-
sdmom and sdaunt were on the same jury of a murder trial. isn't that weird? seems like it is.
Hmm sounds like some mafia workings
-
I was on a jury for a murder a couple years ago. It was a "cold case", happened in 1989.
-
Why would you respond to the letter if you don't want to go? Dumbass.
-
I think it would be awesome to be a foreman. :dunno:
-
Why would you respond to the letter if you don't want to go? Dumbass.
fines and jail time?
-
sdmom and sdaunt were on the same jury of a murder trial. isn't that weird? seems like it is.
I'm no lawyer, but that seems like that would be grounds for an appeal.
-
I always thought that if you had a college education you were pretty much always not picked.
-
Last time I had jury duty I took a book and was there from 8AM until 6PM when I was released. I did not utter a single word to anyone. None.
Beat that.
-
I always thought that if you had a college education you were pretty much always not picked.
If you talk alot during voire dire (sp?) you won't get picked.
-
I always thought that if you had a college education you were pretty much always not picked.
There seems to be an inverted bell curve that people with bach degrees are less likely to be picked. Wife has a masters and was only released because she knew one of the investigating officers.
-
They don't ask if you have a degree. You don't disclose that.
-
They don't ask if you have a degree. You don't disclose that.
I'll take your word for that. Only gotten the letter twice and once was for the town I had moved away from recently. The other was cancelled the first night I called the number.
My wife's been picked three times (attended twice) in that timeframe.
The best way to get out of jury duty is likely to start dropping n-bombs or talk about dirty Jews controlling the government.
-
Easiest way out, just say you know one of the parties to the case. All you have to do is say "ya, I think I know that person." ....Now, if you really don't know them, that's against the law and stuff.
-
Picking juries is very fun. Especially in small towns. You get the questionnaires days ahead of time and all of the office can tell you all the gossip about everybody. I always knew I had the case won once I knocked out the problem prospective jurors.
-
Easiest way out, just say you know one of the parties to the case. All you have to do is say "ya, I think I know that person." ....Now, if you really don't know them, that's against the law and stuff.
What does the law saw about using the six degress of kevin bacon? Knew a guy that knew a canadian that use to sell dope to the accused...that type of thing.
-
You guys are making this whole getting out of jury duty thing way too complicated.
-
If asked, I would serve. Civic duty folks.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.superpimper.com%2Fgraphics%2FUSA_Comments%2Fusa-comments-1022.gif&hash=37a646de51cb368dc65f78bf039cfabb57a5a116)
-
They don't ask if you have a degree. You don't disclose that.
not hard to figure out. My wife works for a jury research firm and it's lolable how dumb the "typical" jury pool and candidates are.
-
They don't ask if you have a degree. You don't disclose that.
not hard to figure out. My wife works for a jury research firm and it's lolable how dumb the "typical" jury pool and candidates are.
Yeah, usually the people who have strong opinions seem to be pretty dumb.
-
Picking juries is very fun. Especially in small towns. You get the questionnaires days ahead of time and all of the office can tell you all the gossip about everybody. I always knew I had the case won once I knocked out the problem prospective jurors.
Any good jury picking stories? :fatty: I've sat through a couple and it seems most lawyers like to embarrass the stupid people by frustrating them when asking multiple, open ended questions.
-
I was on Jury duty for the month of December but never responded to the letter (wife put it in a drawer and I forgot about it). Am I going to get into trouble? I served on a jury several years ago and deported a guy for drug charges. It was fun. I liked arguing with all the other jury members on semantics.
-
Very disappointed, thought this was a thread about one of Pauly Shore's finest movies. Behind Son In Law and Bio-Dome of course.
I have only been summoned for jury duty once. I called the phone number the night before the selection process was supposed to start and a recording told me the case had been dismissed out of court.
-
I was on Jury duty for the month of December but never responded to the letter (wife put it in a drawer and I forgot about it). Am I going to get into trouble? I served on a jury several years ago and deported a guy for drug charges. It was fun. I liked arguing with all the other jury members on semantics.
No, they don't give a crap.
-
I got a call about a year ago from some federal pre-screening service that kept me on the phone for 30min with questions about Westar and David Witig(SP). I normally hang up on people very quickly when they have any questions, but after hearing what it was about, I was :crossfingers: that I would get picked.
-
Any good jury picking stories? :fatty:
Remind me to tell you some at a pak or as you're at my house fixing whatever needs to be fixed on my router/ps3 to be able to play you in NBA Jam.
-
Never been asked to be on a jury of my peers yet. Would LOVE to do it, just for the experience. I figure of I didn't want to be on a jury, I'd just insinuate that I was racist or something, something impossible to disprove.
-
A good stack of juror questionaires and Facebook can be a good tool in picking a jury.
-
I figure of I didn't want to be on a jury, I'd just insinuate that I was racist or something, something impossible to disprove.
Can you get held in contempt of court for that?
-
A good stack of juror questionaires and Facebook can be a good tool in picking a jury.
Hadn't thought of that. I bet Facebook is very revealing in getting to know your prospective jurors.
-
A good stack of juror questionaires and Facebook can be a good tool in picking a jury.
Hadn't thought of that. I bet Facebook is very revealing in getting to know your prospective jurors.
BUT IS IT ETHICAL TO FRIEND REQUEST THEM TO SEE THEIR WALL AND/OR PHOTOS!? :dubious:
-
A good stack of juror questionaires and Facebook can be a good tool in picking a jury.
Hadn't thought of that. I bet Facebook is very revealing in getting to know your prospective jurors.
BUT IS IT ETHICAL TO FRIEND REQUEST THEM TO SEE THEIR WALL AND/OR PHOTOS!? :dubious:
yes
-
I've been on jury duty all week...didn't make an attempt to 'get out of it' but it would have been pretty easy. We started deliberations this afternoon...couldn't reach a verdict, we will pick up deliberations again in the AM...it is an interesting case, with a lot of unusual circumstances, but I'm having trouble talking the morons that don't see things my way off of their posistion...so the deliberations are frustrating as hell...will discuss when legally allowed at end of trial
-
Wow, kinda sounds like the opposite of emawesome
-
2 weeks on some age discrimination suit....had told the judge I had flight plans on the Thursday....trial ends on Thursday. She let me go as the alternate even though I wasn't. I was super happy although kind of let down I didn't get to decide anything after 2 boring weeks of testimony.
-
more than three years later, i still haven't gotten the chance to serve on a jury. :frown:
-
omg i just studied jury stuff today what are the odds?!
if anyone has any questions go ahead and ask me.
-
I would love to be on a jury. My dream job is to be a judge, but I'm kinda stupid so Oh well
-
I got a jury summons for US district court.
apparently I have to call a hotline every friday evening in May to learn if I need to report the following week or not.
-
I got a jury summons for US district court.
apparently I have to call a hotline every friday evening in May to learn if I need to report the following week or not.
This is ridiculous. eff them, if they need you they should contact you.
-
I got a jury summons for US district court.
apparently I have to call a hotline every friday evening in May to learn if I need to report the following week or not.
This is ridiculous. eff them, if they need you they should contact you.
thats what I said!
-
It's Emo family tradition that you just say "I could never convict a man of a crime I didn't see him commit myself."
-
I actually want to serve on a jury. gE'ing has got to be good practice for deliberating?
-
Mom was on a sequestered capital murder trial like 15 years ago. Pretty crazy stuff once she got back but we couldnt talk to her for two weeks except for monitored phone calls. Also they screened everything she watched and read. Would be tough these days with smart phones. I guess they would just take them from you or something? Seems shitty for the $25 a day or whatever they pay you. Now if i was still in college, it would be awesome to do a jury deal like that. These days yes I would still get my work paycheck, but man would I fall behind on stuff and have to do some major catch up.
Never been called or received a letter though.
-
I just got a summons last week for jury duty on the 28th. First time I've ever gotten a summons. My wife gets picked about once a year. She doesn't try to get out of it, so she's been picked to be on the jury a few times.
-
I was a juror for a double murder trial a couple years ago. It was pretty awful. Mother and her unborn child were killed and we had to look at the photos of the bodies from the autopsy, and the prosecution had to prove the fetus died due to the mother receiving two shots to the head. :frown:
We took about 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty. He did not even testify in his defense.
-
I was a juror for a double murder trial a couple years ago. It was pretty awful. Mother and her unborn child were killed and we had to look at the photos of the bodies from the autopsy, and the prosecution had to prove the fetus died due to the mother receiving two shots to the head. :frown:
We took about 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty. He did not even testify in his defense.
Life or death sentence?
-
I was a juror for a double murder trial a couple years ago. It was pretty awful. Mother and her unborn child were killed and we had to look at the photos of the bodies from the autopsy, and the prosecution had to prove the fetus died due to the mother receiving two shots to the head. :frown:
We took about 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty. He did not even testify in his defense.
well I don't want to do this :frown:
-
I was a juror for a double murder trial a couple years ago. It was pretty awful. Mother and her unborn child were killed and we had to look at the photos of the bodies from the autopsy, and the prosecution had to prove the fetus died due to the mother receiving two shots to the head. :frown:
We took about 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty. He did not even testify in his defense.
Life or death sentence?
It was not up to us. The judge informed us that in these type of cases, the family of the victim can press for the death penalty, but in this case I believe they did not. Either way the sentencing was to happen a few weeks after the trial, and the jury was not involved.
-
I was a juror for a double murder trial a couple years ago. It was pretty awful. Mother and her unborn child were killed and we had to look at the photos of the bodies from the autopsy, and the prosecution had to prove the fetus died due to the mother receiving two shots to the head. :frown:
We took about 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty. He did not even testify in his defense.
Life or death sentence?
It was not up to us. The judge informed us that in these type of cases, the family of the victim can press for the death penalty, but in this case I believe they did not. Either way the sentencing was to happen a few weeks after the trial, and the jury was not involved.
I wasn't insinuating that you had any bearing over the sentence, just curious what he eventually got. Missouri can be pretty hard on violent criminals.
-
I was a juror for a double murder trial a couple years ago. It was pretty awful. Mother and her unborn child were killed and we had to look at the photos of the bodies from the autopsy, and the prosecution had to prove the fetus died due to the mother receiving two shots to the head. :frown:
We took about 10 minutes to find the defendant guilty. He did not even testify in his defense.
Life or death sentence?
It was not up to us. The judge informed us that in these type of cases, the family of the victim can press for the death penalty, but in this case I believe they did not. Either way the sentencing was to happen a few weeks after the trial, and the jury was not involved.
I wasn't insinuating that you had any bearing over the sentence, just curious what he eventually got. Missouri can be pretty hard on violent criminals.
The jury was 10 females and 2 males, which I found to be representative of the relative eliteness of the prosecuting attorney vs the public defendant.
A few months later I was at Kennedy's (RIP) and I kept making eye contact with this girl who looked familiar and was a little bit older than me. We finally were like "do I know you?" and then we remembered we were on the jury together. We were both pretty pak'd and had a good bonding session to kind of exhale all of that weird vibe you get from such a sad case. "That [redacted] was so guilty omg right? How about a shot? WOOHOO!"
-
He did not even testify in his defense.
Defendants rarely testify.
-
He did not even testify in his defense.
Defendants rarely testify.
yeah so far 0 out of 1 case that i've been a part of, the defendant testified
-
He did not even testify in his defense.
Defendants rarely testify.
yeah so far 0 out of 1 case that i've been a part of, the defendant testified
Welp, sounds like all we need to seal this, then, is wacky and his gavel.
-
why don't defendants testify? i mean if you are innocent what have you got to hide?
-
why don't defendants testify? i mean if you are innocent what have you got to hide?
They don't prosecute innocent people, usually.
-
I was boss foreman of a jury trying a domestic terrorist/violent militia dude. He represented himself. You'd think he'd be kind of a badass but was a total idiot.
-
why don't defendants testify? i mean if you are innocent what have you got to hide?
If the facts of the case as presented are sufficient why don't defendants testify? i mean if you are innocent what have you got to hide?
They don't prosecute innocent people, usually.
Yup. It's kinda silly, the whole jury thing. It's like, hey, can we just all vote guilty and call it a day? I've got 2 tix to the Yankees game and barely enough time to catch the train in time to meet my son at the ballpark. Looks like rain.
-
why don't defendants testify? i mean if you are innocent what have you got to hide?
It probably is pretty hard to sound innocent when you are being questioned by a seasoned lawyer. It would also be incredibly nerve-wracking, especially in a murder trial where the outcome means so much. Nervous ticks could very easily make a jury think you are lying your ass off.
-
why don't defendants testify? i mean if you are innocent what have you got to hide?
It probably is pretty hard to sound innocent when you are being questioned by a seasoned lawyer. It would also be incredibly nerve-wracking, especially in a murder trial where the outcome means so much. Nervous ticks could very easily make a jury think you are lying your ass off.
Yeah, some (most?) people really aren't fit to handle that situation. I mean, look what happened to the witness/friend in the Trayvon trial. James Carville esq. carved her up like a Thanksgiving turkey.
-
did chingon testify? white collar defendants often do.
-
why don't defendants testify? i mean if you are innocent what have you got to hide?
It probably is pretty hard to sound innocent when you are being questioned by a seasoned lawyer. It would also be incredibly nerve-wracking, especially in a murder trial where the outcome means so much. Nervous ticks could very easily make a jury think you are lying your ass off.
Yep. Lawyers do a good job making dumb people look extremely dumb. I get to testify as an expert witness for my employer a few times a year. I cringe when the lawyers smell blood on the stand. It's pretty ugly
-
He did not even testify in his defense.
Defendants rarely testify.
It's been more often than not in my experience that they do. Maybe not much over half, but the majority even if ever so slightly. It is often against the advice of counsel though. I have never had it happen where I wasn't delighted that they did.
-
He did not even testify in his defense.
Defendants rarely testify.
It's been more often than not in my experience that they do. Maybe not much over half, but the majority even if ever so slightly. It is often against the advice of counsel though. I have never had it happen where I wasn't delighted that they did.
Well you'd certainly know better than I would.
-
He did not even testify in his defense.
Defendants rarely testify.
It's been more often than not in my experience that they do. Maybe not much over half, but the majority even if ever so slightly. It is often against the advice of counsel though. I have never had it happen where I wasn't delighted that they did.
Well you'd certainly know better than I would.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it varies greatly from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
-
Do defense lawyers not realize that while your average Joe Jury Member MAY be swayed by a prosecuting attorney making your client look nervous, your average Joe Jury Member DEFINITELY will think it is odd that the defendant does not even attempt to defend him/herself?
-
Do defense lawyers not realize that while your average Joe Jury Member MAY be swayed by a prosecuting attorney making your client look nervous, your average Joe Jury Member DEFINITELY will think it is odd that the defendant does not even attempt to defend him/herself?
Maybe, until the judge specifically instructs the jury that the refusal to testify should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Then still, maybe.
-
Do defense lawyers not realize that while your average Joe Jury Member MAY be swayed by a prosecuting attorney making your client look nervous, your average Joe Jury Member DEFINITELY will think it is odd that the defendant does not even attempt to defend him/herself?
Maybe, until the judge specifically instructs the jury that the refusal to testify should not be interpreted as an admission of guilt. Then still, maybe.
yeah that's weird because the judge said that, but the only thing i remember was that the defendant did not try to defend himself
-
I think Pistorius should have stayed off the stand. I'm not sure if you have that right in South Africa or not, though.
-
Do defense lawyers not realize that while your average Joe Jury Member MAY be swayed by a prosecuting attorney making your client look nervous, your average Joe Jury Member DEFINITELY will think it is odd that the defendant does not even attempt to defend him/herself?
Criminal defense lawyers realize that there may be some mocats on the jury (especially if the defense lawyer didn't eliminate all the mocats in voir dire) that will put weight into the defendant not testifying, but also realize that if the defendant does testify that mocats and non-mocats on the jury will get to watch their guilty client get destroyed on the stand and undoubtedly be found guilty.
And as was alluded to earlier, that's all because prosecutors generally only take the absolutely guilty ones to trial. And not only the just the absolutely guilty ones, but the absolutely guilty ones where there's nothing weird with the case that the prosecutor can't overcome to get a conviction.
Notwithstanding all that, 12 Angry Men is a great movie.
-
Yeah, Jack Lemon was a hell of an actor.
-
Do defense lawyers not realize that while your average Joe Jury Member MAY be swayed by a prosecuting attorney making your client look nervous, your average Joe Jury Member DEFINITELY will think it is odd that the defendant does not even attempt to defend him/herself?
Criminal defense lawyers realize that there may be some mocats on the jury (especially if the defense lawyer didn't eliminate all the mocats in voir dire) that will put weight into the defendant not testifying, but also realize that if the defendant does testify that mocats and non-mocats on the jury will get to watch their guilty client get destroyed on the stand and undoubtedly be found guilty.
And as was alluded to earlier, that's all because prosecutors generally only take the absolutely guilty ones to trial. And not only the just the absolutely guilty ones, but the absolutely guilty ones where there's nothing weird with the case that the prosecutor can't overcome to get a conviction.
Notwithstanding all that, 12 Angry Men is a great movie.
Ironically, so is Jury Duty
-
Not Pauly Shore's best work, but still good.
-
He did not even testify in his defense.
Defendants rarely testify.
It's been more often than not in my experience that they do. Maybe not much over half, but the majority even if ever so slightly. It is often against the advice of counsel though. I have never had it happen where I wasn't delighted that they did.
Well you'd certainly know better than I would.
the eff would chingon know about people testifying
-
Do defense lawyers not realize that while your average Joe Jury Member MAY be swayed by a prosecuting attorney making your client look nervous, your average Joe Jury Member DEFINITELY will think it is odd that the defendant does not even attempt to defend him/herself?
Criminal defense lawyers realize that there may be some mocats on the jury (especially if the defense lawyer didn't eliminate all the mocats in voir dire) that will put weight into the defendant not testifying, but also realize that if the defendant does testify that mocats and non-mocats on the jury will get to watch their guilty client get destroyed on the stand and undoubtedly be found guilty.
And as was alluded to earlier, that's all because prosecutors generally only take the absolutely guilty ones to trial. And not only the just the absolutely guilty ones, but the absolutely guilty ones where there's nothing weird with the case that the prosecutor can't overcome to get a conviction.
Notwithstanding all that, 12 Angry Men is a great movie.
that makes sense, thanks trim. judging by the 10 minutes of deliberating, there were 12 "mocats" on the jury, fwiw
-
Do defense lawyers not realize that while your average Joe Jury Member MAY be swayed by a prosecuting attorney making your client look nervous, your average Joe Jury Member DEFINITELY will think it is odd that the defendant does not even attempt to defend him/herself?
Criminal defense lawyers realize that there may be some mocats on the jury (especially if the defense lawyer didn't eliminate all the mocats in voir dire) that will put weight into the defendant not testifying, but also realize that if the defendant does testify that mocats and non-mocats on the jury will get to watch their guilty client get destroyed on the stand and undoubtedly be found guilty.
And as was alluded to earlier, that's all because prosecutors generally only take the absolutely guilty ones to trial. And not only the just the absolutely guilty ones, but the absolutely guilty ones where there's nothing weird with the case that the prosecutor can't overcome to get a conviction.
Notwithstanding all that, 12 Angry Men is a great movie.
that makes sense, thanks trim. judging by the 10 minutes of deliberating, there were 12 "mocats" on the jury, fwiw
I'd guess that it could've been 5 minutes if the defendant had testified, assuming you all wouldn't have spent some time lol'n and/or wtf'n at his testimony.
-
Can we put bad lawyers on blast in this thread (pics and such)? The plaintiff's lawyer in the case I sat on absolutely killed any chance the lady had.
-
This is going to be long, so if you aren't into that sort of thing, go get your DNR GIF's & post away...this is still the Cliffs Notes version to this thing...lots more issues were discussed, but this is the nuts & bolts of the case I just sat through for 5 days
Civil Case...events happened all the way back in 2004.
Plaintiff is a 50 year old Paraplegic Man that has been paraplegic since 15 years old
Timeline
4-5-04 - While at work, the plaintiff while in his wheelchair, reaches for an item that is too high, and ends up falling backwards out of his wheelchair when the back of the wheelchair breaks. Goes to his GP DR, who refers him to NKCBJ (Bone & Joint) where he has initial shoulder exam, which is negative. Schedules a follow up visit to NKCBJ for 4-22-04 to reassess Shoulder injury if it hasn't improved.
4-14-04 - While transferring from his bed to his wheelchair, his right shoulder gives out and the plaintiff falls to the floor directly on his right knee. He is paraplegic, but still has about 10% of pain sensation of a 'normal' person...says leg feels like a charlie horse that day. Sees some swelling.
4-15-04 - Makes an appointment with and sees his GP Dr, (who later becomes the defendant in this case) RE: Right knee. Examination shows swelling, but intact joint. Hip & Femur X-Rays are taken @ GP office. Defendant states there is "No acute fracture that I am able to elicit" on the X-Rays. Sends plaintiff home with instructions to use Ace Bandage & ice to treat swelling, and gives plaintiff the X-Rays to take with him to the same Orthopedic Dr that the Defendant referred him to RE his shoulder injury...Defendant testifies that he remembers the follow up visit being already scheduled for "Several days" after 4-15. No mention of extra care to plaintiff of injury, only to 'follow up' w/ NKCBJ
4-16 to 4-21-04 - Plaintiff sees increased swelling/bruising to his femur/right knee area. Attempts to call Defendants office 3-4 different days to talk to nurse, Dr, anybody. Finally gets through to Nurse on 4-21. Nurse call notes state plaintiff is concerned about blood clots, advises plaintiff to take aspirin to reduce clotting risk.
4-22-04 - Plaintiff sees NKCBJ...this is the appointment that was originally to have been follow up to shoulder injury, but femur is now main concern. The X-Rays taken on 4-15 @ GP office are shown to Orthopedic Surgeon, who elicits a fracture. Note taken at that time states the plaintiff will be admitted to the hospital for treatment which includes new X-Rays, checking for blood clots, blood work, UA, and bracing of the femur/knee is mentioned. There is NO mention of surgery in the initial Orthopedic Surgeons notes. X-Rays taken on 4-22 show a major, impacted fracture of the femur...basically 2-3 cm of bone impaled down into the knee joint between 4-15 & 4-22. At that time, Orthopedic Surgeons notes state that surgery will be required on this injury.
4-23-04 - approx 9-05
Plaintiff has surgery on 4-23. Bone distender (I believe was the term) is used during surgery to pull the impacted portion of his femur back to correct length. Steel plate and 10 screws are inserted into femur. During healing a brace is used that locks the knee at a specific angle, starting w/ straight, and ending some months later w/ a nearly 90* bend. During his time wearing the brace significant skin wounds appear which warrant the use of a wound vac, which is basically a small vacuum that runs non stop, and vacates these wounds of infection. Fracture is noted as healed on 10-04. Wounds persist until approx 9-05.
Testimony
Defendant
Defendant states that the fracture was not seen on initial X-Rays taken on 4-15, but given the swelling, he suspected there was 'internal derangement' of some sort, be it a sprain, ligament damage, or a hairline fracture. He knew the X-rays would be difficult to read b/c the plaintiff is a paraplegic (pp going forward) that does not have bones that are as dense as a walking person. Has received consult from Radiologists in the past on other cases, did not see a reason to consult on this case. Was afraid to put plaintiff in an immobilization brace b/c pp patients are susceptible to skin breakdown (very bad bed sores basically) b/c of their lack of sensation, esp when no fracture was elicited on the x-ray. States that even if a fracture was elicited on the x-rays he took on 4-15, his course of treatment would have been the same as it was...basically follow up w/ orthopedic surgeon.
Expert Witness #1
Degree in Orthopedic Medicine + Law School degree + Business degree...has testified in 40 some cases before as an expert witness in this field. Found the X-Rays on 4-15 to show an acute fracture of the femur. Stated that the type of fracture in that x-ray is often fixed w/o surgery by using a Bledsoe brace. Thought that a GP Dr. should be able to elicit a fracture like the one seen, and thought that by missing the fracture, and failing to immobilize the leg on 4-15 he had failed to meet the standard of care. Says the X-Rays taken on 4-22 show a much more severe injury that now almost always requires surgery.
Expert Witness #2
GP doctor for 30 years, now hospital admin. Testified in 33 cases as expert witness, 32 of which were for the defense. Testifies that even though the fracture was missed by the GP, the standard of care was met by giving plaintiff the x-rays and ensuring a follow up visit w/ ortho was made. Also testifies the standard of care in a patient that might have a fracture could include immediate visit to orthopedic specialist or immobilization of the area.
Orthopedic Surgeon that the Defendant was referred to
Deposition only. Was a witness for the defense that was not issued a subpoena. Deposition stated that surgery was imminent from the time of the fracture. In direct contradiction to his notes taken on 4-22 described above. Thought that the Defendant met the standard of care by ensuring that the plaintiff had a visit scheduled to an Ortho for further evaluation.
You must rule for the plaintiff if you find all of the following to be true (I can't remember all the legalese used here, Trim, Limestone, Belvis, BSAC, whoever (eff there are a lot of lawyers here) feel free to modify if you GAF)
1) That the defendant missed the fracture on 4-15 x-rays
or
that the defendant failed to immobilize the leg on 4-15
2) That the defendant acted negligent by his actions in #1
3) That the negligence by the defendant caused damage to the plaintiff.
If you find for the plaintiff how much $$ do you award him? $145k in medical bills was the # that was thrown out, along w/ $225k in "Non economic injury" which included categories like loss of lust for life, loss of wages, loss of independence, etc...
How do you rule in this case?
:impatient:
-
Lock him up and throw away the key. If we hurry, I might be able to make it to the Yanks game before the stretch. My boy is waiting.
-
In all seriousness, I would rule for the plaintiff. Damages in the form of medical bills and lost wages.
-
I'm actually in a legal issues in health care class right now so I know all about this stuff :gocho: sounds like the Dr covered his ass by making sure the patient had a follow up scheduled with the orthopedic Dr. I had a some what similar situation happen to my daughter, took her in because we thought she broke her ankle, they took x-rays and didn't find a break, but told us to come back in a day if she wasn't walking on it, we took her back in and they took more x-rays and found a break that they then casted. Probably could have sued the Dr and x-ray person for mis reading the x-rays or not taking x-rays of the right part of her leg, but we didn't.
Raquetcat verdict: NOT GUILTY
-
I'm actually in a legal issues in health care class right now so I know all about this stuff :gocho: sounds like the Dr covered his ass by making sure the patient had a follow up scheduled with the orthopedic Dr. I had a some what similar situation happen to my daughter, took her in because we thought she broke her ankle, they took x-rays and didn't find a break, but told us to come back in a day if she wasn't walking on it, we took her back in and they took more x-rays and found a break that they then casted. Probably could have sued the Dr and x-ray person for mis reading the x-rays or not taking x-rays of the right part of her leg, but we didn't.
Raquetcat verdict: NOT GUILTY
But in your scenario, there was instructions given by the Dr in case things didn't clear up by saying, "come back in a day if she wasn't walking on it,"
The Dr in my case never said, "If you see increased bruising or swelling, get back in here or go to the ER," or, "Take it easy when transitioning from your wheelchair until you get into your ortho to figure out what is going on w/ that leg,"
I was never of the opinion that missing the fracture ='d Neglect in my case, but his lack of instructions to the patient and not ensuring the Ortho follow up was in a more timely manner did = Neglect
-
I'm actually in a legal issues in health care class right now so I know all about this stuff :gocho: sounds like the Dr covered his ass by making sure the patient had a follow up scheduled with the orthopedic Dr. I had a some what similar situation happen to my daughter, took her in because we thought she broke her ankle, they took x-rays and didn't find a break, but told us to come back in a day if she wasn't walking on it, we took her back in and they took more x-rays and found a break that they then casted. Probably could have sued the Dr and x-ray person for mis reading the x-rays or not taking x-rays of the right part of her leg, but we didn't.
Raquetcat verdict: NOT GUILTY
But in your scenario, there was instructions given by the Dr in case things didn't clear up by saying, "come back in a day if she wasn't walking on it,"
The Dr in my case never said, "If you see increased bruising or swelling, get back in here or go to the ER," or, "Take it easy when transitioning from your wheelchair until you get into your ortho to figure out what is going on w/ that leg,"
I was never of the opinion that missing the fracture ='d Neglect in my case, but his lack of instructions to the patient and not ensuring the Ortho follow up was in a more timely manner did = Neglect
The fact that he seemed to vageuly recall that a visit with an orthopedist was on the horizon and that was good enough for him to wash his hands of it seems lazy, if not neglectful. I have seen that many physicians who work with the elderly and disabled seem to give less of a crap, so I may be biased in my assessment.
-
the standard of care was met. why don't people understand a very simple concept such as standard of care? because they're dumb.
-
if this dude's leg hurt so bad b/w 4-16 to 4-21-04 i'm guessing he could have gotten someone on the phone before 5 days had gone by.
-
I would rule for the plaintiff in the amount of whatever his medical bills are. I don't think I'd give him lost wages.
-
I would rule in favor of the defendant and immediately put down the plaintiff like a useless quarterhorse.
-
the standard of care was met. why don't people understand a very simple concept such as standard of care? because they're dumb.
Was it? You're right, that is the question. However, we have two experts - both of whom are exceedingly more qualified than you and me - who disagree on the question. It is not as cut-and-dry as you say.
-
the standard of care was met. why don't people understand a very simple concept such as standard of care? because they're dumb.
Was it? You're right, that is the question. However, we have two experts - both of whom are exceedingly more qualified than you and me - who disagree on the question. It is not as cut-and-dry as you say.
i'm qualified enough to not let a paid med mal expert cloud the issue. this is a very clear case. the gp acted within reason. dismissed.
-
the only thing the gp did wrong was to be so stupid that he couldn't correctly read the scan, which doesn't qualify as negligence or cause standards of care to have not been met. good grief you guys.
-
Sounds like Rowdy and lams are in the pocket of big medicine.
-
The first doctor clearly made a huge mistake and should have to give his patient his money back.
-
the only thing the gp did wrong was to be so stupid that he couldn't correctly read the scan, which doesn't qualify as negligence or cause standards of care to have not been met. good grief you guys.
this is correct.
-
also and this is just an opinion, but anyone allowing their gp to do more than school physicals probably deserves whatever this guy got and then some.
-
also and this is just an opinion, but anyone allowing their gp to do more than school physicals probably deserves whatever this guy got and then some.
What should he have done? Just go to the emergency room?
-
also and this is just an opinion, but anyone allowing their gp to do more than school physicals probably deserves whatever this guy got and then some.
What should he have done? Just go to the emergency room?
i think he should have gone to taco bell and rubbed a bean burrito on his forehead, because that is what makes the most sense. right?
-
when my knee hurts and i think i may have broken it, i usually go to hobby lobby and shop for yarn
-
one time i broke my wrist so i took a nap and then drank a glass of milk.
-
i was playing ball at the rec one time and split open my face, blood everywhere. you guessed it, time to hit the computer lab and knock out some accounting homework
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
-
also and this is just an opinion, but anyone allowing their gp to do more than school physicals probably deserves whatever this guy got and then some.
What should he have done? Just go to the emergency room?
well if we are starting from the beginning i would say buy a better wheel chair and don't clog up the healthcare system with referrals to specialists when you just bruised your shoulder.
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
-
What is "lust for life" and why is it worth so much money?
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
-
i don't need a referral to schedule with a specialist, maybe the trick is to not buy your health insurance from the general
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
I don't need a referral to see one, either, but it's pretty hard to get one to see me without scheduling about 6 months in advance without a referral.
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
I don't need a referral to see one, either, but it's pretty hard to get one to see me without scheduling about 6 months in advance without a referral.
what specifically have you tried to schedule that took six months and why were you trying to schedule it? also, why do you think the referral expedites things?
also, for the guy in particular that we were discussing...he had already seen the specialist at least once so the initial new patient visit was out of the way. my guess is that if he would've called the office, said that he had new scans for something that just happened and wanted to bring them in, they would've moved up his appt. also, i've already said i have no large problems with the way the gp handled it. in a perfect world he would be smarter than he is and would've correctly read the x-ray but the world isn't perfect and it doesn't or shouldn't give the patient the right to sue.
-
if this dude's leg hurt so bad b/w 4-16 to 4-21-04 i'm guessing he could have gotten someone on the phone before 5 days had gone by.
The plaintiff wasn't the one on trial. We all agreed that he didn't use great judgement by not going to the ER, or trying to get his leg looked at, but personal responsibility wasn't on trial in this case.
-
if this dude's leg hurt so bad b/w 4-16 to 4-21-04 i'm guessing he could have gotten someone on the phone before 5 days had gone by.
The plaintiff wasn't the one on trial. We all agreed that he didn't use great judgement by not going to the ER, or trying to get his leg looked at, but personal responsibility wasn't on trial in this case.
Well it kind of was. Because a reasonable person similarly situated would not have done what he did and the standard of care was met.
-
if this dude's leg hurt so bad b/w 4-16 to 4-21-04 i'm guessing he could have gotten someone on the phone before 5 days had gone by.
The plaintiff wasn't the one on trial. We all agreed that he didn't use great judgement by not going to the ER, or trying to get his leg looked at, but personal responsibility wasn't on trial in this case.
his motivation to sue someone greatly increased b/c he sat on his injury for 5 days while trying to get a hold of anyone in the world who knew anything about knee injuries but he just couldn't b/c no one answered their phone for 5 days straight while he was writhing in 10% of pain.
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
I don't need a referral to see one, either, but it's pretty hard to get one to see me without scheduling about 6 months in advance without a referral.
what specifically have you tried to schedule that took six months and why were you trying to schedule it? also, why do you think the referral expedites things?
also, for the guy in particular that we were discussing...he had already seen the specialist at least once so the initial new patient visit was out of the way. my guess is that if he would've called the office, said that he had new scans for something that just happened and wanted to bring them in, they would've moved up his appt. also, i've already said i have no large problems with the way the gp handled it. in a perfect world he would be smarter than he is and would've correctly read the x-ray but the world isn't perfect and it doesn't or shouldn't give the patient the right to sue.
It was a dermatologist and it was about 10 years ago. I've never broken a bone or anything that would need immediate attention, so maybe they will work with you. :dunno: Still, I think it is more than reasonable that if a GP could get you in the same day and you think you may have a broken bone to expect him/her to be able to read an x-ray and tell you if the bone is broken or not.
-
the standard of care was met. why don't people understand a very simple concept such as standard of care? because they're dumb.
This, and the definition of "Neglect" were the two overriding issues that led to a not-guilty verdict in this case.
The ONLY time "Standard of Care" was clearly given a Websters definition in the entire trial was during the Prosecutions opening arguments...it was like in the first minute of his opening. Pro Tip for all the lawyers on this board...jurors are still kind of in a mild state of shock at that time...we are still processing the fact that we aren't going to work that day, or the next day, or the next day...I don't know if it is always like this, but we were literally called into the courtroom, the 13 of us were selected, the other 30 left, we were sworn in, and we started the trial. I specifically remember hearing him define SoC, I, nor any of my other jurors wrote the definition down in notes.
RE: Neglect, we had one guy on the jury that kept saying, "He took X-Rays, he didn't neglect the guy, so we can't find him guilty of Neglect," to which ever time, I would read the three sentence Law Approved definition of Neglect which is NOTHING like the everyday definition of Neglect. The definition we were told to use was something along the lines of, "If you find the defendent didn't diagnose the fracture or immobilize the leg, you must find the def neglectful if you feel a majority of those with similar qualifications & experience would have acted differently (that is a horrible paraphrase, but it gets the point across that 'intent' to cause harm or 'dismissive' of the patient needs wasn't in the definition.
Anyway, when we got the case for deliberations, 1st vote was 5 negligent, 5 not-negligent & 2 undecided...after 4 hours, next vote was 4 negligent, 6 not-negligent & 2 undecided. At that time, we broke for the evening on Thursday. Came back Friday AM to finish up, both undecideds had moved slightly into the not-negligent camp...90 minutes later and a 9-3 Not Negligent verdict was met. Me and two other guys were the dissenters, and I was stuck on a couple of simple facts...the Defendant did not confirm an appointment was made for the ortho, so he didn't know if it was in 24 hours or 1 week, and no further care instructions were given to the plaintiff, other than to treat with ice for swelling and take the x-rays into the ortho. If he had simply said, "There is something wrong w/ the knee (like he mentioned in testimony), be it a sprain, deep bruise or a hairline fracture, take it easy until you can get a 2nd opinion," then I'd be on the other side with the not-negligent folks. My biggest factor was that once the break went from minor to impacted, surgery was then a certainty...I felt the plaintiff, if nothing else, was robbed of his decision making in his recovery by the delayed diagnosis...non-surgical options were there for him to choose before, they weren't by the time he got into the ortho.
After the trial, I did get to spend about 90 minutes talking to the plaintiff, his lawyers and a shorter time talking w/ the defendant & his lawyers. I told them what I mentioned above about the two deifnitions being the sticking points, and that they neglected to call another GP as an expert witness testifying to the readability of the Initial X-Ray...if they had another GP say that the fracture should have been diagnosed, instead of 'expert' witnesses in the field of orthopedics, it would have ended differently.
Ironically, even through I was the loudest voice in the negligence camp during deliberations, I also wouldn't have voted to give the guy a lot of $$ if the Dr was found negligent. I wouldn't have touched the Dr Bills, since the Defendant didn't cause the injury, most of the bills would have come about no matter the treatment, and there is a chance surgery would have been required anyway...since we weren't given itemized bills, guessing at a total would have been our only choice. I would have fought to give him a little $$ for lost wages, and a little $$ for Loss of Enjoyment of life, but you're talking $30-$40k max, compared to the $400k or so they were asking for.
-
if this dude's leg hurt so bad b/w 4-16 to 4-21-04 i'm guessing he could have gotten someone on the phone before 5 days had gone by.
The plaintiff wasn't the one on trial. We all agreed that he didn't use great judgement by not going to the ER, or trying to get his leg looked at, but personal responsibility wasn't on trial in this case.
his motivation to sue someone greatly increased b/c he sat on his injury for 5 days while trying to get a hold of anyone in the world who knew anything about knee injuries but he just couldn't b/c no one answered their phone for 5 days straight while he was writhing in 10% of pain.
He wasn't writhing in pain...he stated it felt like a cramp or a charlie horse, which he had experienced in the past.
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
I don't need a referral to see one, either, but it's pretty hard to get one to see me without scheduling about 6 months in advance without a referral.
what specifically have you tried to schedule that took six months and why were you trying to schedule it? also, why do you think the referral expedites things?
also, for the guy in particular that we were discussing...he had already seen the specialist at least once so the initial new patient visit was out of the way. my guess is that if he would've called the office, said that he had new scans for something that just happened and wanted to bring them in, they would've moved up his appt. also, i've already said i have no large problems with the way the gp handled it. in a perfect world he would be smarter than he is and would've correctly read the x-ray but the world isn't perfect and it doesn't or shouldn't give the patient the right to sue.
It was a dermatologist and it was about 10 years ago. I've never broken a bone or anything that would need immediate attention, so maybe they will work with you. :dunno: Still, I think it is more than reasonable that if a GP could get you in the same day and you think you may have a broken bone to expect him/her to be able to read an x-ray and tell you if the bone is broken or not.
Especially when the GP Bills you for the X-Ray, therefore adding to the perception that he knows WTF he is looking at...if X-Rays are that tough, they need to have a radiologist on staff or not take x-rays in the office at all...as opposed to billing insurance companies & patients for films...especially in rare cases like this w/ an osteo-perodic bone that is known for creating difficult to read x-rays
-
the standard of care was met. why don't people understand a very simple concept such as standard of care? because they're dumb.
This, and the definition of "Neglect" were the two overriding issues that led to a not-guilty verdict in this case.
The ONLY time "Standard of Care" was clearly given a Websters definition in the entire trial was during the Prosecutions opening arguments...it was like in the first minute of his opening. Pro Tip for all the lawyers on this board...jurors are still kind of in a mild state of shock at that time...we are still processing the fact that we aren't going to work that day, or the next day, or the next day...I don't know if it is always like this, but we were literally called into the courtroom, the 13 of us were selected, the other 30 left, we were sworn in, and we started the trial. I specifically remember hearing him define SoC, I, nor any of my other jurors wrote the definition down in notes.
RE: Neglect, we had one guy on the jury that kept saying, "He took X-Rays, he didn't neglect the guy, so we can't find him guilty of Neglect," to which ever time, I would read the three sentence Law Approved definition of Neglect which is NOTHING like the everyday definition of Neglect. The definition we were told to use was something along the lines of, "If you find the defendent didn't diagnose the fracture or immobilize the leg, you must find the def neglectful if you feel a majority of those with similar qualifications & experience would have acted differently (that is a horrible paraphrase, but it gets the point across that 'intent' to cause harm or 'dismissive' of the patient needs wasn't in the definition.
Anyway, when we got the case for deliberations, 1st vote was 5 negligent, 5 not-negligent & 2 undecided...after 4 hours, next vote was 4 negligent, 6 not-negligent & 2 undecided. At that time, we broke for the evening on Thursday. Came back Friday AM to finish up, both undecideds had moved slightly into the not-negligent camp...90 minutes later and a 9-3 Not Negligent verdict was met. Me and two other guys were the dissenters, and I was stuck on a couple of simple facts...the Defendant did not confirm an appointment was made for the ortho, so he didn't know if it was in 24 hours or 1 week, and no further care instructions were given to the plaintiff, other than to treat with ice for swelling and take the x-rays into the ortho. If he had simply said, "There is something wrong w/ the knee (like he mentioned in testimony), be it a sprain, deep bruise or a hairline fracture, take it easy until you can get a 2nd opinion," then I'd be on the other side with the not-negligent folks. My biggest factor was that once the break went from minor to impacted, surgery was then a certainty...I felt the plaintiff, if nothing else, was robbed of his decision making in his recovery by the delayed diagnosis...non-surgical options were there for him to choose before, they weren't by the time he got into the ortho.
After the trial, I did get to spend about 90 minutes talking to the plaintiff, his lawyers and a shorter time talking w/ the defendant & his lawyers. I told them what I mentioned above about the two deifnitions being the sticking points, and that they neglected to call another GP as an expert witness testifying to the readability of the Initial X-Ray...if they had another GP say that the fracture should have been diagnosed, instead of 'expert' witnesses in the field of orthopedics, it would have ended differently.
Ironically, even through I was the loudest voice in the negligence camp during deliberations, I also wouldn't have voted to give the guy a lot of $$ if the Dr was found negligent. I wouldn't have touched the Dr Bills, since the Defendant didn't cause the injury, most of the bills would have come about no matter the treatment, and there is a chance surgery would have been required anyway...since we weren't given itemized bills, guessing at a total would have been our only choice. I would have fought to give him a little $$ for lost wages, and a little $$ for Loss of Enjoyment of life, but you're talking $30-$40k max, compared to the $400k or so they were asking for.
Those are good points. Is it likely that he would have had a wound and needed a wound vac for an entire year even if he had immediate treatment? I'm just not sure why he should get money for things like lost wages or loss of independence when he was already a paraplegic before this happened and the injury was only causing discomfort that felt like a cramp or charlie horse.
-
the standard of care was met. why don't people understand a very simple concept such as standard of care? because they're dumb.
This, and the definition of "Neglect" were the two overriding issues that led to a not-guilty verdict in this case.
The ONLY time "Standard of Care" was clearly given a Websters definition in the entire trial was during the Prosecutions opening arguments...it was like in the first minute of his opening. Pro Tip for all the lawyers on this board...jurors are still kind of in a mild state of shock at that time...we are still processing the fact that we aren't going to work that day, or the next day, or the next day...I don't know if it is always like this, but we were literally called into the courtroom, the 13 of us were selected, the other 30 left, we were sworn in, and we started the trial. I specifically remember hearing him define SoC, I, nor any of my other jurors wrote the definition down in notes.
RE: Neglect, we had one guy on the jury that kept saying, "He took X-Rays, he didn't neglect the guy, so we can't find him guilty of Neglect," to which ever time, I would read the three sentence Law Approved definition of Neglect which is NOTHING like the everyday definition of Neglect. The definition we were told to use was something along the lines of, "If you find the defendent didn't diagnose the fracture or immobilize the leg, you must find the def neglectful if you feel a majority of those with similar qualifications & experience would have acted differently (that is a horrible paraphrase, but it gets the point across that 'intent' to cause harm or 'dismissive' of the patient needs wasn't in the definition.
Anyway, when we got the case for deliberations, 1st vote was 5 negligent, 5 not-negligent & 2 undecided...after 4 hours, next vote was 4 negligent, 6 not-negligent & 2 undecided. At that time, we broke for the evening on Thursday. Came back Friday AM to finish up, both undecideds had moved slightly into the not-negligent camp...90 minutes later and a 9-3 Not Negligent verdict was met. Me and two other guys were the dissenters, and I was stuck on a couple of simple facts...the Defendant did not confirm an appointment was made for the ortho, so he didn't know if it was in 24 hours or 1 week, and no further care instructions were given to the plaintiff, other than to treat with ice for swelling and take the x-rays into the ortho. If he had simply said, "There is something wrong w/ the knee (like he mentioned in testimony), be it a sprain, deep bruise or a hairline fracture, take it easy until you can get a 2nd opinion," then I'd be on the other side with the not-negligent folks. My biggest factor was that once the break went from minor to impacted, surgery was then a certainty...I felt the plaintiff, if nothing else, was robbed of his decision making in his recovery by the delayed diagnosis...non-surgical options were there for him to choose before, they weren't by the time he got into the ortho.
After the trial, I did get to spend about 90 minutes talking to the plaintiff, his lawyers and a shorter time talking w/ the defendant & his lawyers. I told them what I mentioned above about the two deifnitions being the sticking points, and that they neglected to call another GP as an expert witness testifying to the readability of the Initial X-Ray...if they had another GP say that the fracture should have been diagnosed, instead of 'expert' witnesses in the field of orthopedics, it would have ended differently.
Ironically, even through I was the loudest voice in the negligence camp during deliberations, I also wouldn't have voted to give the guy a lot of $$ if the Dr was found negligent. I wouldn't have touched the Dr Bills, since the Defendant didn't cause the injury, most of the bills would have come about no matter the treatment, and there is a chance surgery would have been required anyway...since we weren't given itemized bills, guessing at a total would have been our only choice. I would have fought to give him a little $$ for lost wages, and a little $$ for Loss of Enjoyment of life, but you're talking $30-$40k max, compared to the $400k or so they were asking for.
Those are good points. Is it likely that he would have had a wound and needed a wound vac for an entire year even if he had immediate treatment? I'm just not sure why he should get money for things like lost wages or loss of independence when he was already a paraplegic before this happened and the injury was only causing discomfort that felt like a cramp or charlie horse.
Despite his paraplegia, he was working at the time of the incident, and didn't work again until September '04, when he returned for like 20 hrs a week...didn't return full time until Feb, '05...I think the suggested amount of lost wages that we got was factoring in the testimony that said non-surgical repair could have been completed in 3 months...so we wouldn't have compensated for that time. He worked for, and received awards from the Social Security admin, so his insurance was most likely through the Govt (though his wife worked at Morgan Stanley pre-injury - had to quit to care for him - so he may have been insured through her plan, it never came up)
RE: the Wound Vac...he had never needed a wound vac before, but he had received treatment for skin breakdown caused by his paraplegia. It is likely he would have developed skin sores however the leg was immobilized b/c that is just the reality for paraplegics.
RE: Loss of independence...the guy is really a good dude. His wife testified that before the leg, he would get out of his wheelchair, and vacuum, dust, clean the bathroom, etc...post leg injury, he has been unable to do that for fear of banging the hardware he has in there. This fear has also led to him not playing with his granddaughter as much b/c he is afraid the hardware will come apart.
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
I don't need a referral to see one, either, but it's pretty hard to get one to see me without scheduling about 6 months in advance without a referral.
what specifically have you tried to schedule that took six months and why were you trying to schedule it? also, why do you think the referral expedites things?
also, for the guy in particular that we were discussing...he had already seen the specialist at least once so the initial new patient visit was out of the way. my guess is that if he would've called the office, said that he had new scans for something that just happened and wanted to bring them in, they would've moved up his appt. also, i've already said i have no large problems with the way the gp handled it. in a perfect world he would be smarter than he is and would've correctly read the x-ray but the world isn't perfect and it doesn't or shouldn't give the patient the right to sue.
It was a dermatologist and it was about 10 years ago. I've never broken a bone or anything that would need immediate attention, so maybe they will work with you. :dunno: Still, I think it is more than reasonable that if a GP could get you in the same day and you think you may have a broken bone to expect him/her to be able to read an x-ray and tell you if the bone is broken or not.
doesn't sound that unreasonable considering...
1)there is a severe shortage of dermatologists in the US
2)it was a new patient appt
3)it was (i'm assuming) non-emergent
-
also and this is just an opinion, but anyone allowing their gp to do more than school physicals probably deserves whatever this guy got and then some.
What should he have done? Just go to the emergency room?
should have pak'd
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
I don't need a referral to see one, either, but it's pretty hard to get one to see me without scheduling about 6 months in advance without a referral.
what specifically have you tried to schedule that took six months and why were you trying to schedule it? also, why do you think the referral expedites things?
also, for the guy in particular that we were discussing...he had already seen the specialist at least once so the initial new patient visit was out of the way. my guess is that if he would've called the office, said that he had new scans for something that just happened and wanted to bring them in, they would've moved up his appt. also, i've already said i have no large problems with the way the gp handled it. in a perfect world he would be smarter than he is and would've correctly read the x-ray but the world isn't perfect and it doesn't or shouldn't give the patient the right to sue.
It was a dermatologist and it was about 10 years ago. I've never broken a bone or anything that would need immediate attention, so maybe they will work with you. :dunno: Still, I think it is more than reasonable that if a GP could get you in the same day and you think you may have a broken bone to expect him/her to be able to read an x-ray and tell you if the bone is broken or not.
doesn't sound that unreasonable considering...
1)there is a severe shortage of dermatologists in the US
2)it was a new patient appt
3)it was (i'm assuming) non-emergent
Yeah, I wasn't upset about it or anything. I guess I have always just assumed that specialists are harder to see on short notice than GPs. Is that not the case? If you thought you had a broken bone, would you wait a couple of days to have it X-rayed or go to the ER instead of just having a GP look at it?
-
How do you get around first scheduling with the GP?
You probably have to either marry a doctor or be a doctor yourself. Or just head straight to the emergency room.
it depends on your insurance. mine doesn't require any kind of gp referral for me to see a specialist. i think my son needs his tonsils and adenoids out? i call whatever ent i want him to see and schedule an appointment for him directly.
I don't need a referral to see one, either, but it's pretty hard to get one to see me without scheduling about 6 months in advance without a referral.
what specifically have you tried to schedule that took six months and why were you trying to schedule it? also, why do you think the referral expedites things?
also, for the guy in particular that we were discussing...he had already seen the specialist at least once so the initial new patient visit was out of the way. my guess is that if he would've called the office, said that he had new scans for something that just happened and wanted to bring them in, they would've moved up his appt. also, i've already said i have no large problems with the way the gp handled it. in a perfect world he would be smarter than he is and would've correctly read the x-ray but the world isn't perfect and it doesn't or shouldn't give the patient the right to sue.
It was a dermatologist and it was about 10 years ago. I've never broken a bone or anything that would need immediate attention, so maybe they will work with you. :dunno: Still, I think it is more than reasonable that if a GP could get you in the same day and you think you may have a broken bone to expect him/her to be able to read an x-ray and tell you if the bone is broken or not.
doesn't sound that unreasonable considering...
1)there is a severe shortage of dermatologists in the US
2)it was a new patient appt
3)it was (i'm assuming) non-emergent
Yeah, I wasn't upset about it or anything. I guess I have always just assumed that specialists are harder to see on short notice than GPs. Is that not the case? If you thought you had a broken bone, would you wait a couple of days to have it X-rayed or go to the ER instead of just having a GP look at it?
This is where stand-alone Emergency Rooms can provide real value. Regarding specialists, there's always variance between different practices. Some doctors are more willing to accommodate patients than others are. Plus, there are always the last-minute cancellations that free up appointments. Depending on the doctor/practice, a popular GP can be more difficult to see than a specialist. Regardless, my experience is that in cases of true urgency, the players involved will find a way to make it work.
-
Also of note...during selection process, they ask you if you know any lawyers...I threw out Limestone & Belvis by name since I know them personally...I guess I should have also said that I know Trim & BSAC...prolly would have got my name off the list, Belvis & Limestone just didn't carry enough weight on their own apparently :dubious:
-
sounds like that doctor was a huge dumbass and should be fired.
-
sounds like that doctor was a huge dumbass and should be fired.
I agree. Unfortunately, I'm sure he is still practicing.
-
people almost never sue their doctor unless the dr. is a dickhead. i learned that in "blink" by malcolm gladwell. this quack probably had it coming.
-
Yeah, I wasn't upset about it or anything. I guess I have always just assumed that specialists are harder to see on short notice than GPs. Is that not the case? If you thought you had a broken bone, would you wait a couple of days to have it X-rayed or go to the ER instead of just having a GP look at it?
depends on a million factors with the actual specialty and what you need to see them for being the most important. a non urgent new patient appointment with a dermatologist would be one of the longer if not longest waits that i could imagine. also, if i have reason to believe that i just broke a bone then yeah, i'm probably going to the ER so they can consult w/ the on call guy about it. the gp would be the last place i'd go.
-
sounds like that doctor was a huge dumbass and should be fired.
I agree. Unfortunately, I'm sure he is still practicing.
it's impossible for a dr. to lose their license.
-
You're all saying what you wild do with a broken bone... We'd all be writhing (to use SDs word) in pain... Not feeling a cramp or Charlie horse, so of course we'd either go to the ER or another course of action till relieve/diagnose our acute pain...
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
-
Plaintiff lawyer said after the case that malpractice or negligence cases are almost impossible to get rulings that go against the Dr.
sounds like that doctor was a huge dumbass and should be fired.
I agree. Unfortunately, I'm sure he is still practicing.
it's impossible for a dr. to lose their license.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
-
Plaintiff lawyer said after the case that malpractice or negligence cases are almost impossible to get rulings that go against the Dr.
sounds like that doctor was a huge dumbass and should be fired.
I agree. Unfortunately, I'm sure he is still practicing.
it's impossible for a dr. to lose their license.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Sounds like something a loser would say.
-
Plaintiff lawyer said after the case that malpractice or negligence cases are almost impossible to get rulings that go against the Dr.
sounds like that doctor was a huge dumbass and should be fired.
I agree. Unfortunately, I'm sure he is still practicing.
it's impossible for a dr. to lose their license.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
if this happened in johnson county, ks, then he's right
-
Clay county MO
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
-
did both atty specialize in med mal? the med mal pros won't take a case unless they know they're going to settle. on the flip side, i've seen a non-med mal guy lose his ass taking a med mal case to trial which he wasn't qualified to argue. at the end he couldn't even afford the trial notes and was borrowing them from the defense.
-
One time I broke my ankle. Didn't hurt too bad, but I went straight to the ER.
-
Plaintiff lawyer said after the case that malpractice or negligence cases are almost impossible to get rulings that go against the Dr.
sounds like that doctor was a huge dumbass and should be fired.
I agree. Unfortunately, I'm sure he is still practicing.
it's impossible for a dr. to lose their license.
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
if this happened in johnson county, ks, then he's right
the dr. who delivered my brother was hammered. lost his license in ks so now he practices in florida.
-
did both atty specialize in med mal? the med mal pros won't take a case unless they know they're going to settle. on the flip side, i've seen a non-med mal guy lose his ass taking a med mal case to trial which he wasn't qualified to argue. at the end he couldn't even afford the trial notes and was borrowing them from the defense.
I don't think so...the main prosecuting attorney Patrick Berrigan (http://www.kctriallawyers.com/new_page_1.htm) is a criminal lawyer, he was entertaining to listen to...the #2 plaintiff lawyer (Brian Klopfenstein) lists personal injury among his fields
This is the case record...
https://www.courts.mo.gov/casenet/cases/searchDockets.do
record # 7CV105007308
-
Also of note...during selection process, they ask you if you know any lawyers...I threw out Limestone & Belvis by name since I know them personally...I guess I should have also said that I know Trim & BSAC...prolly would have got my name off the list, Belvis & Limestone just didn't carry enough weight on their own apparently :dubious:
You probably also could've gotten tossed if you'd been saying stuff during voir dire about prosecutors and determining whether the doctor was guilty or not.
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
-
Also of note...during selection process, they ask you if you know any lawyers...I threw out Limestone & Belvis by name since I know them personally...I guess I should have also said that I know Trim & BSAC...prolly would have got my name off the list, Belvis & Limestone just didn't carry enough weight on their own apparently :dubious:
You probably also could've gotten tossed if you'd been saying stuff during voir dire about prosecutors and determining whether the doctor was guilty or not.
Easily...I only talked twice, once when they asked about lawyers, and again when the defendants lawyer asked me what my job title specifically does...anybody that raised their hand more than a few times was off the jury
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
It's a big mistake, but what I'm saying it's one a lot of doctors would probably make, (even non-lazy ones). crap happens sometimes, ya know?
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
It's a big mistake, but what I'm saying it's one a lot of doctors would probably make, (even non-lazy ones). crap happens sometimes, ya know?
Lawyers, strictly hypothetically speaking...if a hypothetical juror takes a photo of evidence after deliberations were completed, is that illegal?
If said hypothetical juror were to post hypothetical photo of hypothetical evidence for review in a public forum, would that be illegeler?
Do either of these potential illegalities carry a large enough penalty to make hypothetical juror not post hypothetical photo of hypothetical evidence on a public forum?
:popcorn:
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
It's a big mistake, but what I'm saying it's one a lot of doctors would probably make, (even non-lazy ones). crap happens sometimes, ya know?
it was somewhat unfortunate that the gp felt the need to perform the x-ray and then attempt to read it on his own while simultaneously not knowing how to and/or being very good at it. this is not surprising though and does not equal neglect or illustrate lack of standard of care on his part.
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
It's a big mistake, but what I'm saying it's one a lot of doctors would probably make, (even non-lazy ones). crap happens sometimes, ya know?
it was somewhat unfortunate that the gp felt the need to perform the x-ray and then attempt to read it on his own while simultaneously not knowing how to and/or being very good at it. this is not surprising though and does not equal neglect or illustrate lack of standard of care on his part.
How hard would it have been to just email the x-ray to somebody who knows how to read it and follow up with his patient if his initial diagnosis is inaccurate? Doesn't seem like it would be hard at all if the doctor actually gave a crap about his job or the people he is paid to take care of.
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
It's a big mistake, but what I'm saying it's one a lot of doctors would probably make, (even non-lazy ones). crap happens sometimes, ya know?
it was somewhat unfortunate that the gp felt the need to perform the x-ray and then attempt to read it on his own while simultaneously not knowing how to and/or being very good at it. this is not surprising though and does not equal neglect or illustrate lack of standard of care on his part.
How hard would it have been to just email the x-ray to somebody who knows how to read it and follow up with his patient if his initial diagnosis is inaccurate? Doesn't seem like it would be hard at all if the doctor actually gave a crap about his job or the people he is paid to take care of.
He probably didn't see anything out of the ordinary. And he did give the defendant the x-rays to show the B&J doc.
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
It's a big mistake, but what I'm saying it's one a lot of doctors would probably make, (even non-lazy ones). crap happens sometimes, ya know?
it was somewhat unfortunate that the gp felt the need to perform the x-ray and then attempt to read it on his own while simultaneously not knowing how to and/or being very good at it. this is not surprising though and does not equal neglect or illustrate lack of standard of care on his part.
How hard would it have been to just email the x-ray to somebody who knows how to read it and follow up with his patient if his initial diagnosis is inaccurate? Doesn't seem like it would be hard at all if the doctor actually gave a crap about his job or the people he is paid to take care of.
He probably didn't see anything out of the ordinary. And he did give the defendant the x-rays to show the B&J doc.
Everything about this patient is out of the ordinary. And he set up the appointment with the other doctor for a whole week later.
-
Lawyers, strictly hypothetically speaking...if a hypothetical juror takes a photo of evidence after deliberations were completed, is that illegal?
If said hypothetical juror were to post hypothetical photo of hypothetical evidence for review in a public forum, would that be illegeler?
Do either of these potential illegalities carry a large enough penalty to make hypothetical juror not post hypothetical photo of hypothetical evidence on a public forum?
:popcorn:
If this was all just a big lead-up to flipping the script and posting some more NEZ renderings, I say, as always, do whatever you want.
-
I don't think the Dr is stupid for having missed the break he just should have done a better job with the follow up part, either saying if it still hurts in 2 days come see me again (which seems to be the go to Dr line if they can't figure out what's wrong with you) or finding out when the ortho follow up was and helping with that. Basically if he had told the guy to come see him again he could have avoided getting sued and made more money, and probably still could have just referred him to the ortho.
-
I don't think the Dr is stupid for having missed the break he just should have done a better job with the follow up part, either saying if it still hurts in 2 days come see me again (which seems to be the go to Dr line if they can't figure out what's wrong with you) or finding out when the ortho follow up was and helping with that. Basically if he had told the guy to come see him again he could have avoided getting sued and made more money, and probably still could have just referred him to the ortho.
The problem was the doctor not being able to read the x-ray, not that the guy needed to come see him again. He should have realized that he doesn't see many x-rays of paraplegics and that he should have somebody else look at it. Then he should have called the patient later that day when it turned out he did indeed miss the fracture so he could get the leg restrained and maybe figure out a way for the guy to actually go see somebody who knows what he's doing in less time than a whole week.
-
I don't think the doctor was a "dumbass" for missing the broken bone. People will miss things they aren't expecting to see, and I'm guessing a high percentage of doctors would have missed the broken bone in similar circumstances. "The Invisible Gorilla" has some great info about cases like this.
pretty big effing mistake if you are the guy that it happened to. Why the eff else do you go to the doctor? GP's are lazy as eff and just want their insurance check. For christ sakes the dude is a PP and can't feel he's got a broken leg. Do your job and protect the dude.
It's a big mistake, but what I'm saying it's one a lot of doctors would probably make, (even non-lazy ones). crap happens sometimes, ya know?
it was somewhat unfortunate that the gp felt the need to perform the x-ray and then attempt to read it on his own while simultaneously not knowing how to and/or being very good at it. this is not surprising though and does not equal neglect or illustrate lack of standard of care on his part.
How hard would it have been to just email the x-ray to somebody who knows how to read it and follow up with his patient if his initial diagnosis is inaccurate? Doesn't seem like it would be hard at all if the doctor actually gave a crap about his job or the people he is paid to take care of.
This was 2004...X-ray's, at least in this case weren't digital...you are on the same train of thought I was on though... I thought using a courier to get the X-ray's to the ortho would have been prudent
Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
-
hey, i mean how hard can it be to get someone who is probably overworked and stressed out to get another person who is probably overworked and stressed out to help them with something that they're pretty sure they already know the answer to and both know that the second person won't get paid to do it. i mean do the rough ridin' math on that one.
also in defense of the gp, he already sent the guy over to a surgeon for something that didn't require surgery once and there is a difference between giving someone business and over referring/taking up all their time on fruitless new patient appointments/consults. the ortho guy might have jfc'd him into next week for sending the scan and/or patient over like it was some kind of emergency if it ended up being normal for all we know. no win situation with a challenging and apparently litigious patient.
-
hey, i mean how hard can it be to get someone who is probably overworked and stressed out to get another person who is probably overworked and stressed out to help them with something that they're pretty sure they already know the answer to and both know that the second person won't get paid to do it. i mean do the rough ridin' math on that one.
also in defense of the gp, he already sent the guy over to a surgeon for something that didn't require surgery once and there is a difference between giving someone business and over referring/taking up all their time on fruitless new patient appointments/consults. the ortho guy might have jfc'd him into next week for sending the scan and/or patient over like it was some kind of emergency if it ended up being normal for all we know. no win situation with a challenging and apparently litigious patient.
I have changed my tune and am now in whatever camp RowdyBoyy is whenever it comes to these issues. You can tell he is a physician IRL.
-
hey, i mean how hard can it be to get someone who is probably overworked and stressed out to get another person who is probably overworked and stressed out to help them with something that they're pretty sure they already know the answer to and both know that the second person won't get paid to do it. i mean do the rough ridin' math on that one.
also in defense of the gp, he already sent the guy over to a surgeon for something that didn't require surgery once and there is a difference between giving someone business and over referring/taking up all their time on fruitless new patient appointments/consults. the ortho guy might have jfc'd him into next week for sending the scan and/or patient over like it was some kind of emergency if it ended up being normal for all we know. no win situation with a challenging and apparently litigious patient.
I have changed my tune and am now in whatever camp RowdyBoyy is whenever it comes to these issues. You can tell he is a physician IRL.
A doctor of the long arm of the law
-
hey, i mean how hard can it be to get someone who is probably overworked and stressed out to get another person who is probably overworked and stressed out to help them with something that they're pretty sure they already know the answer to and both know that the second person won't get paid to do it. i mean do the rough ridin' math on that one.
also in defense of the gp, he already sent the guy over to a surgeon for something that didn't require surgery once and there is a difference between giving someone business and over referring/taking up all their time on fruitless new patient appointments/consults. the ortho guy might have jfc'd him into next week for sending the scan and/or patient over like it was some kind of emergency if it ended up being normal for all we know. no win situation with a challenging and apparently litigious patient.
I have changed my tune and am now in whatever camp RowdyBoyy is whenever it comes to these issues. You can tell he is a physician IRL.
the money part of the argument is disappointing but i don't think it's legally relevant.
edit: by disappointing i mean sad and it gets my sympathy.
-
hey, i mean how hard can it be to get someone who is probably overworked and stressed out to get another person who is probably overworked and stressed out to help them with something that they're pretty sure they already know the answer to and both know that the second person won't get paid to do it. i mean do the rough ridin' math on that one.
also in defense of the gp, he already sent the guy over to a surgeon for something that didn't require surgery once and there is a difference between giving someone business and over referring/taking up all their time on fruitless new patient appointments/consults. the ortho guy might have jfc'd him into next week for sending the scan and/or patient over like it was some kind of emergency if it ended up being normal for all we know. no win situation with a challenging and apparently litigious patient.
The Mrs. deals with this kinda crap daily. The ER Doc calls her about admitting a patient with a dead foot lastnight which is something she can't do anything with. So she tells him to call the cardiologist that's on call. ER doc calls back and says the cardiologist hung up on him twice and it would great if she could just admit the patient. So she does and now she is the attending for a patient she will not even be caring for. This kinda crap seems to happen often.
-
Those poor overworked doctors. :cry:
-
Those poor overworked doctors. :cry:
That's an oxymorton.
-
hey, i mean how hard can it be to get someone who is probably overworked and stressed out to get another person who is probably overworked and stressed out to help them with something that they're pretty sure they already know the answer to and both know that the second person won't get paid to do it. i mean do the rough ridin' math on that one.
also in defense of the gp, he already sent the guy over to a surgeon for something that didn't require surgery once and there is a difference between giving someone business and over referring/taking up all their time on fruitless new patient appointments/consults. the ortho guy might have jfc'd him into
next week for sending the scan and/or patient over like it was some kind of emergency if it ended up being normal for all we know. no win situation with a challenging and apparently litigious patient.
I have changed my tune and am now in whatever camp RowdyBoyy is whenever it comes to these issues. You can tell he is a physician IRL.
FYI clams is too. He is not a pilot so don't fall for that.
-
"Hey, doc, you got a second to take a look at this x-ray? It's a paraplegic, and I can't really tell if he has a break or not. You specialize in this kind of thing, and we could save this guy a whole lot of time, money, and pain if we find something now rather than later."
"Not now. I'm way too busy HELPING PEOPLE. Get that x-ray out of my face."
"Good point. I'm too busy, too. I'm not even getting paid extra for this phone call. JFC, the guy is probably fine. Thanks for your time, doc."
-
"Hey, doc, you got a second to take a look at this x-ray? It's a paraplegic, and I can't really tell if he has a break or not. You specialize in this kind of thing, and we could save this guy a whole lot of time, money, and pain if we find something now rather than later."
"Not now. I'm way too busy HELPING PEOPLE. Get that x-ray out of my face."
"Good point. I'm too busy, too. I'm not even getting paid extra for this phone call. JFC, the guy is probably fine. Thanks for your time, doc."
fwiw, i started to break this down for you and tell you everything that was dumb about what you just wrote (and there was a lot), but then stopped. you don't really care and i don't have the time or patience.
-
Why do doctors get a free pass?
-
Why do doctors get a free pass?
They don't
-
Doctors!!! :shakesfist:
-
Doctors kill more people than guns. :whistle1:
-
Doctors kill more people than guns. :whistle1:
Interesting if true.
-
You'll never take the doctors away
-
i thought x-rays were read by radiologists, who specialize in reading x-rays, and they send a report of what they see to the doc?
-
i thought x-rays were read by radiologists, who specialize in reading x-rays, and they send a report of what they see to the doc?
yes. radiologists read xrays, ct scans, mris, etc. so do surgeons and other people as well.
-
but i'm not supposed to trust my GP to read an xray for himself, am I?
-
but i'm not supposed to trust my GP to read an xray for himself, am I?
can we not slowplay this?
-
i think @bubbles4ksu may be interested in the one i'm on :Chirp:
-
A socialist stabbed a fascist :pray:
-
A socialist stabbed a fascist :pray:
katdaddy stabbings, maybe :fatty:
-
A socialist stabbed a fascist :pray:
katdaddy stabbings, maybe :fatty:
:horrorsurprise:
-
A socialist stabbed a fascist :pray:
katdaddy stabbings, maybe :fatty:
:horrorsurprise:
:horrorsurprise:
-
Report for jury duty tomorrow :Crybaby:
-
I had jury duty not long ago, and it was great. Got dismissed without doing anything at all before lunch.
-
it's awesome so far (about one week in)
-
A socialist stabbed a fascist :pray:
you and 'bias have the best crossposts.
but no, no recent facist stabbings that i'm aware of. :frown:
-
i also may not be 100% certain of bubbles' boyhood USD
-
not as cool when there are big decisions to be made :frown:
-
not as cool when there are big decisions to be made :frown:
some late friday night deliberating eh?
-
i also may not be 100% certain of bubbles' boyhood USD
You got it right.
-
My one experience with jury duty was great. I was excused by 9:30 a.m. and took the rest of the day off of work.
I hope to get asked to come back soon.
-
Thoughts on boozing during your jury duty lunch break?
-
Thoughts on boozing during your jury duty lunch break?
It's fine.
-
Thoughts on boozing during your jury duty lunch break?
Other jurors will drop a dime on you
-
Thoughts on boozing during your jury duty lunch break?
I'm thinking that I am against this, but probably okay if it's one drink. No pak'n.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
If the perp is a lock for a conviction you should slam a few back.
-
If the perp is a lock for a conviction you should slam a few back.
innocent until proven guilty is being replaced with too pak'd to give an eff
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Only in San Francisco would rusty make it on a jury
-
I just got my summons to serve this week. My dates are late June. Haven't ever served before.
-
on day 3 of this crap, the lady in the seat next to me takes off her shoes and sits on her knees and is dumb. Still haven't even dismissed anyone. So many dumb people, and most of them have college degrees. Awful.
-
And I'm DEFINITELY boozing for this lunch break.
-
I was like, "why do they have us show up at 9 when they don't let us in until 9:45?"
And then some jackass in a jury chair doesn't show up until 9:50.
-
I was like, "why do they have us show up at 9 when they don't let us in until 9:45?"
And then some jackass in a jury chair doesn't show up until 9:50.
Sounds like that jackass wins.
-
Who from gE would you most like to serve on jury duty with?
For ole dobber, I'd have to say Bread.
Gonna win 'em all!
-
Who from gE would you most like to serve on jury duty with?
For ole dobber, I'd have to say Bread.
Gonna win 'em all!
ksuw
-
Who from gE would you most like to serve on jury duty with?
For ole dobber, I'd have to say Bread.
Gonna win 'em all!
sys
-
Who from gE would you most like to serve on jury duty with?
For ole dobber, I'd have to say Bread.
Gonna win 'em all!
pw
-
I always thought being on a jury would be kind of cool and interesting. Its not. At all.
-
I always thought being on a jury would be kind of cool and interesting. Its not. At all.
But you can use your status to fight unjust drug laws (which clog up 60% of of US court cases: sorry rapists and murders, you'll have to wait)
https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/why-use-jury-nullification/ (https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/why-use-jury-nullification/)
-
The time I was on a jury was pretty interesting (and I got out of work for a few days).
-
I've only been called for jury duty once and got struck. :frown:
-
My first jury duty is tomorrow. I have a work trip on Wednesday. What are the chances this will be over by then?? :angry:
-
you still in DK?
-
you still in DK?
yes
-
meth, guilty. should take like 15m
-
Will take. :Woohoo:
-
I had jury duty a couple weeks ago and it was great. Slammed 3 Belgian beers at the Trappist over the two hour lunch and the judge had the jury and alternates in place by 3pm. (And I wasn't in it).
-
i had it the first week of december. dui case. 2 days. wasnt too bad.
-
I had jury duty a couple weeks ago and it was great. Slammed 3 Belgian beers at the Trappist over the two hour lunch and the judge had the jury and alternates in place by 3pm. (And I wasn't in it).
Reminds me of Tanner v. United States, only much more beta. Sad!
-
Out by 11:45am with verdict. Will gladly take.
-
was the meth influence direct or indirect?
-
was the meth influence direct or indirect?
most likely indirect. DUI case.
-
i didn't realize that dui cases actually went to trial
-
I had jury duty a couple weeks ago and it was great. Slammed 3 Belgian beers at the Trappist over the two hour lunch and the judge had the jury and alternates in place by 3pm. (And I wasn't in it).
Reminds me of Tanner v. United States, only much more beta. Sad!
wow that sounds like quite a trial!
-
i didn't realize that dui cases actually went to trial
Proportionally, very few do. And believe it or not, but among those that do it is usually pretty hard to get convictions on them.
-
What kind of evidence gets presented in a dui case? Like BAC readings and junk?
-
What kind of evidence gets presented in a dui case? Like BAC readings and junk?
in the case i served on, they tried to say that because he coughed a minute or so before he took the breathalyzer at the station that the results should have been thrown out. he still blew over the limit over an hour after the initial traffic stop.
-
What kind of evidence gets presented in a dui case? Like BAC readings and junk?
that would have been helpful in the case today.
-
Goddamit
-
They hit me up for qualification in joco a few weeks ago and I haven’t seen anything since
-
They hit me up for qualification in joco a few weeks ago and I haven’t seen anything since
Same. I just filled out a questionnaire for them. Asked if there was any reason I shouldn't do it and I said: "I'll vote everyone guilty no matter what!"
-
tell them your online catchphrase is literally case closed
-
:lol:
-
(https://media.tenor.com/BKk0-I2aA78AAAAC/we-got.gif)
-
I got a notice recently, waited in line probably a good 1-1.5 hours and was promptly greeted with a “see you in 2 years” when I made it to the front.
-
I've never been called/notified for jury duty. Did I maybe forget to check some box when I was 18 registering to vote?
-
Was Jury Foreman for this guy's trial. He's since escaped. HE'S STILL OUT THERE!
-
T’s & P’s, you in danger gurl
-
I've never been called/notified for jury duty. Did I maybe forget to check some box when I was 18 registering to vote?
In Texas my wife and I both get notices within a few months of registering a new vehicle. It’s like clockwork.
-
About a year ago I got a notice for Federal district court. A week later I got a notice from my county as well. Told the local boys they were SOL because I was big timing it with the feds. They backed it up to the following month. I never actually had to appear for either one. 2 bullets dodged!
-
Funny you say that, because as a future jury member, those two bullets never dodged. They were hits and you’ll be in jail forever now! Case closed!
-
Tell them you believe in jury nullification, or even know what it is
-
I guess I’m somewhat of a “constitutionalist” in that I harken back to the framer’s intent. A jury of your peers. So during selection I’m am relentlessly working to determine if this man or woman is, in fact, my peer. If not, I just stand up and say “Your Honor if it please the Court I must recuse myself from these proceedings as the defendant is no Peer of mine” and ev-er-y time the Judge has asked me to approach The Bench so they could shake my hand and thank me for my service. The only thing that ever varies is if they are wiping tears from their eyes as they do it.
-
I was wiping tears from my eyes when I read that post.
-
i just saw a bald eagle fly over my head as I read that post
-
Funny you say that, because as a future jury member, those two bullets never dodged. They were hits and you’ll be in jail forever now! Case closed!
I'm trying to parse this language with no luck ...
-
Funny you say that, because as a future jury member, those two bullets never dodged. They were hits and you’ll be in jail forever now! Case closed!
I'm trying to parse this language with no luck ...
It’s all a part of the joke! Duh!
-
Band of brothers