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: skinowski who wrote (477822)	3/21/2012 10:59:02 AM
From: Zakrosian	Respond to of 793955

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. I could easily have seen another jury finding the other way - she experienced a sharp decline in her Blood Pressure, which would indicate internal bleeding (I think), in the recovery room, and the hospital did send her home while she was suffering pain. And I can't remember the explanation, but everyone agreed that the ruptured spleen was the cause of her condition - technically, it wasn't quadriplegia, but I don't remember what the term was. On "loser pays", my opinion is that it should be a two stage process. After the jury determination for plaintiff or defendant, a decision on whether the lawsuit was frivolous or not. If so, then the "loser pays" kicks in. This was definitely not a frivolous lawsuit.