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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (80873)	7/9/2004 1:09:23 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Without this documentation, there is a good chance the plaintiff (patient) will prevail. - Holly I disagree. For all the reasons I have already given plus two more. 1) Policy: If there is a written policy within the organization, or as in this case a legal standard, then the service provider is bound by it. Failing to follow the standard would make him/her liable. Sometimes it is more protective to the service provider when policy is lacking. Point being, more documentation is not always better for the provider. "It is incumbent upon the medical professional (defendant) to show what was done and when it was done. " 2) The medical professional did show what was done. Consultation regarding risks, followed by prescription. If the plaintif can prove that in every other case the Dr had documented the details of her consultation, but not this time, then the plaintif might have a case. Lacking that standard the Dr who was there is the only eye witness and the plaintif is simply speculating about the Drs honesty. Nothing in Laz's scenario suggests the Dr has a history of unethical medical treatment or false reporting. In addition there is collaboration from a second eye witness, and professional expert (the pharmacist). Where is the case proving these two lied?