Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (53233)	7/7/2004 4:18:23 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 793905

"Marilyn was the brains in that couple." But she didnt have the good looks. (g)

To: Ilaine who wrote (53233)	7/7/2004 5:13:17 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793905

I actually know quite a bit about, and have made quite a bit of money on med mal cases over the years. Wow! One little old nurse thinks she/he knows more about the cases than all those other people put together? I don't think so. I just watched one little old nurse put on an impressive display of medical knowledge. So impressive that it got the only lawyer in the room at the time ranting and raving about a variety of different unrelated topics.

To: Ilaine who wrote (53233)	7/7/2004 5:41:31 PM
From: carranza2	Respond to of 793905

and Edwards just got dumb lucky doesn't go too far with me. Of course, he was lucky. Lucky to get the bad baby cases that he could prepare for trial. Juries don't generally turn away bad baby cases without a substantial award. I don't think you got the gist of the NE Journal of Medicine article linked by that clever little old nurse. And certainly haven't thought through the legal implications. Baby CP cases caused by malpractice are rare. Proving the exact cause of CP, however, is extremely difficult, and it is therefore equally difficult to exclude physician fault as a cause. No matter how compelling the statistical studies which exclude malpractice as a cause might be, they don't prove anything in any particular case. They are irrelevant evidence and cannot be considered at trial. If a trial lawyer can get an expert under these circumstances to opine that "the Doctor did it," he's essentially home free because it's very difficult for juries to turn down CP babies with zero verdicts. And large amounts of cash buys those opinions. Does this mean that there are a lot of CP baby cases in which large awards are made in which the MD did nothing wrong? I am absolutely sure of it.