SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Zakrosian who wrote (477819)3/21/2012 10:22:02 AM
From: Alan Smithee1 Recommendation  Respond to of 793926
 
No, it was definitely related to the procedure, as the doctor conceded - she suffered a ruptured spleen. Very rare, but it does occur. If we had a "loser pays" policy regarding lawsuits, we may have come to a different conclusion.

I don't understand. You voted against the Plaintiff's claim, meaning you didn't believe the hospital or doctor committed malpractice. Who pays the costs of suit has nothing to do with the merits of the claims made in the case. The question of who pays the cost of suit is nothing for the jury to concern itself with.



To: Zakrosian who wrote (477819)3/21/2012 10:26:32 AM
From: skinowski  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 793926
 
Ruptured spleen is a bad thing. It can make a person bleed to death. But in order to become quadriplegic something else is still needed, like damage to the spinal cord.

Interesting point about the "loser pays" concept. Juries may be reluctant to make the sufferer pay, even when there isn't a strong case for malpractice.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News