|
joat mon posted:Some states allow limited pain and suffering in small claims cases. Where are you? I'm in Virginia. I sent my papers to the victim's fund and they're reviewing it and collecting police reports. The case manager said the eye doctor stuff wouldn't be covered (although other visits to the same eye doctor may be covered because I had some blurry vision from the assault). Thanks for you guys' help.
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
Thanks for the info guys. I really appreciate the help. I tried googling around but I don't understand a lot of the jargon and some of the info seems iffy but you guys are a great help.joat mon posted:e: If can't wear contacts ever again, that's more tangible and recoverable than pain and suffering, but small claims is probably not the right venue. Check with an attorney. (You may have some problems proving the inability to wear contacts was the result of negligence rather than the assault) I go evaluated a week before the surgery by an eye doctor because of the assault and there were no abrasions. The issue is in my charts from the surgery and as a condition of my discharge I had to seek care for my eye. My eye doctor and surgeon had three phone calls about the issue. It was bad. So there's no doubt it occurred as a result and during the surgery I guess it's just an issue of proving negligence. dr cum patrol esq fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:I'm fuming at the doctors office for the amazing amount of disrespect. The pain is gone but I can no longer wear contact lenses because the abrasion can open. You don't think I'm entitled to anything for the pain I endured for their negligence. I guess it's more of the principle of the matter as the doctor told me not to worry about a thing and now his office minions are basically saying it didn't happen. Joat mom responded pretty well so no use repeating what he said. See a lawyer as that way they can give you straight yes or no answers (which we can't really do.) Judgment proof is like the most important legal concept in the world, hah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 17:27
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Judgment proof is like the most important legal concept in the world, hah. You don't have to say, hah. That's a bit brash as I'm not affiliated with anything in the legal world so I think it's reasonable to not know what judgment proof means. Which is why I assume there's an ask/tell thread. Thanks for the advice, I appreciate it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 17:30
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:Hello legal gurus. I do some med mal but I'm not your lawyer and I may not even live in your state. A) It depends on your state B) Due to the complicated nature of medical procedures, generally you have to have an expert witness explain how the doctor was negligent. This requires hiring another doctor. Just because you got hurt doesn't make him negligent-- you have to have another doctor testify how your doctor messed up and what he should have done. This can get expensive-- $500-$800 an hour is a good bet. Additionally, some states have complicated and convoluted notice and filing requirements to sue doctors. You can totally sue the guy who assaulted you. However, he may not have money. G-Mawwwwwww fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
In PA you need to hire a doctor to even file a complaint. It's hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:10
|
|
|
euphronius posted:In PA you need to hire a doctor to even file a complaint. It's hilarious. Texas too. I have a potential case where the dentist did not do the job he was charging for, just charged the dude, put him to sleep and left. I NEED A DENTIST TO TESTIFY IN THAT CASE.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
Is it just the uninformed layperson whom thinks it is loving ridiculous that someone can be in front wing flexing's situation and yet can't afford to (or can't take the huge amount of time to) recoup anything from the surgeon or hospital or whatever? Generally, it seems like lots of entities get away with lots of poo poo because it's too hard/too expensive/too risky to take them to court.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Is it just the uninformed layperson whom thinks it is loving ridiculous that someone can be in front wing flexing's situation and yet can't afford to (or can't take the huge amount of time to) recoup anything from the surgeon or hospital or whatever? They have really good lobbyists. I mean REALLY good. Insurance companies and doctors and hospitals team the gently caress up and throw billions of dollars at this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
CaptainScraps posted:Texas too. To be fair that might be the applicable standard of care in Texas. (This is a Texas joke.)
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:48
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Is it just the uninformed layperson whom thinks it is loving ridiculous that someone can be in front wing flexing's situation and yet can't afford to (or can't take the huge amount of time to) recoup anything from the surgeon or hospital or whatever? On the flip side, they could do something minor (in comparison) and lose millions of dollars, because welp -- malpractice. In fact, malpractice (insurance) is one of the things that is driving the cost of medical care so high in this country. I know doctors that haven't had a single lawsuit in 30+ years and their malpractice insurance rate is astronomical.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Zauper posted:In fact, malpractice (insurance) is one of the things that is driving the cost of medical care so high in this country. I know doctors that haven't had a single lawsuit in 30+ years and their malpractice insurance rate is astronomical.  Texas malpractice insurance companies didn't lower their premiums when tort reform hit.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 18:55
|
|
|
Zauper posted:On the flip side, they could do something minor (in comparison) and lose millions of dollars, because welp -- malpractice. Yeah, I get that. I'm sure many people are just looking for a windfall from doctors. It just seems like a huge crying shame that there's a whole class of relatively-minor things that people can just get away with because its too expensive to do anything about.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 19:00
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:You don't have to say, hah. That's a bit brash as I'm not affiliated with anything in the legal world so I think it's reasonable to not know what judgment proof means. Which is why I assume there's an ask/tell thread. Are you both in the US military? I thought you couldn't sue another military member period? Or does that not apply in this case?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:Are you both in the US military? I thought you couldn't sue another military member period? Or does that not apply in this case? I'm retired military. But an active duty member can most certainly sue another active duty member. I'm sure it would be tricky if the offense occurred on base or on a ship because of jurisdiction stuff. But there are no restrictions for civilian maters that occur in civilian jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
Zauper posted:On the flip side, they could do something minor (in comparison) and lose millions of dollars, because welp -- malpractice. CA has had "tort reform" since the 70s and it has made no difference. The cost of care and insurance company greed is driving malpractice costs, not pain and suffering awards.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 19:54
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:I'm retired military. But an active duty member can most certainly sue another active duty member. I'm sure it would be tricky if the offense occurred on base or on a ship because of jurisdiction stuff. But there are no restrictions for civilian maters that occur in civilian jurisdiction. Oh it must be on base then I was thinking of thank you for the clarification. There was a big hooplah here this year when they announced that even though you still couldn't sue another active duty person you could recover money going through their supervision or something. Actually having looked into I'm still confused. The Feres Doctrine seems to say you couldn't sue the doctor or the other service member if you were active duty at the time. Queen Elizatits fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
Queen Elizatits posted:Oh it must be on base then I was thinking of thank you for the clarification. There was a big hooplah here this year when they announced that even though you still couldn't sue another active duty person you could recover money going through their supervision or something. Feres doctrine says you can't sue the U.S. Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act if you're an individual in the military. Feres said you can't sue the US Government for a crappy firewatch. Griggs and Jefferson were medmal cases against the US government. Feres has nothing to do with (non-service connected) service member to service member lawsuits. joat mon fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:17
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Yeah, I get that. I'm sure many people are just looking for a windfall from doctors. It just seems like a huge crying shame that there's a whole class of relatively-minor things that people can just get away with because its too expensive to do anything about. Yeah, and part of the problem is the emphasis in concrete economic damages. Pain and suffering, and how obnoxious your doctor was, and how right or wrong they were have very little to do with damages, most of the time. If the legal system appropriately valued and awarded pain and suffering damages, 1) it would alleviate situations like this where you get screwed through no fault of your own, but have little specific damages to point to, and 2) it would lead to a tremendous growth in "You took my pulse and now I can't feel my arm! GIMME MAH MONEY!" suits by people who are just making poo poo up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:38
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:Yeah, and part of the problem is the emphasis in concrete economic damages. Pain and suffering, and how obnoxious your doctor was, and how right or wrong they were have very little to do with damages, most of the time. If the legal system appropriately valued and awarded pain and suffering damages, 1) it would alleviate situations like this where you get screwed through no fault of your own, but have little specific damages to point to, and 2) it would lead to a tremendous growth in "You took my pulse and now I can't feel my arm! GIMME MAH MONEY!" suits by people who are just making poo poo up. I wish I was making what happened to my eye up  Imagine an almost centimeter long cut on your eyeball. The cut flaps open and close when you blink. ewwwwww
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Feres doctrine says you can't sue the U.S. Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act if you're an individual in the military. Feres said you can't sue the US Government for a crappy firewatch. Griggs and Jefferson were medmal cases against the US government. Law is the most confusing thing ever, thanks very much for the clarifications
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:I wish I was making what happened to my eye up Contact a lawyer. You may not even have to sue to get some sort of settlement from the surgeon. Just don't go in expecting some sort of apology. If the surgeon was the kind of guy who was going to do that, he would have done it already.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:00
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:I wish I was making what happened to my eye up Look, I'm not saying you're a big whiner-pants who's making a fuss to get paid off because you see easy money. You seem to have a legitimate problem, and probably ought to go talk to a med mal attorney in your area; see if they are willing to take it on contingency, or at least give you a cheap consult. But that doesn't mean that designing a legal system that lets you get paid easily for your harm wouldn't also be really easy to abuse by people who just want a quick payday. You have to understand that, as a consequence of all of those people ruining the system for you, your likely recovery is rather diminished. Also, realize that you're not going to be made entirely whole. The system views "making someone whole" as giving them money to compensate for the money they paid out. Financial compensation for financial harms. Physical harms can be compensated, but generally need to be specific and concrete. Plus, it doesn't take into account attorney's fees. If you have to pay a lawyer, that comes out of either your pocket, or your potential recovery. Basically take a look, see what you can get, but realize that in the end, if you can't get a quick settlement the primary reason to go forward is because the doctor was an rear end in a top hat and you want to make him miserable, not because you're actually going to get all your money back and compensation for your time. Arcturas fucked around with this message at 23:09 on Jun 26, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
Arcturas posted:But that doesn't mean that designing a legal system that lets you get paid easily for your harm wouldn't also be really easy to abuse by people who just want a quick payday. Case in point: quote:Manchester Township, N.J., resident Elizabeth Lloyd has filed a lawsuit seeking an astounding $150,000 in damages related to medical costs incurred after suffering an injury at a Manchester Little League game in 2010. The $150,000 total reportedly doesn't even include an additional unspecified sum being sought for pain and suffering. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/n-j-woman-seeks-150-000-13-old-105928919.html She got hit in the mouth- loss of consortium at common law?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2012 23:27
|
|
|
I have a question regarding media and rights/responsibilities when identifying police suspects. This is purely a matter of curiosity. The article that aroused my curiosity was published in an Australia newspaper (not sure if any Aussie lawyers read this thread?) but I'm interested in opinions/speculation from anyone. A lengthy article regarding the police investigation of the disappearance and presumed murder of a woman named Elizabeth Membrey was published recently. Ms Membrey disappeared in 1994 and a large amount of blood was found in her home. The article told the story of of the police investigations, including the prosecution of a man for murder. The man was found not guilty. In the course of police investigations, a number of suspects were investigated. In the article some of those people were named, others were given titles (eg The Barman, The Former Flatmate, etc). If a suspect was not named the words 'can not be named for legal reasons' appeared after the title. So here are my questions: Why were some suspects able to be named and others not? Those suspects given titles would be fairly easy to identify, particularly by any one who knew the victim, so how does the title approach differ? The article was clearly written with the cooperation of the police, yet it was pretty critical of the investigation (eg the police didn't interview their main suspect until 6 years after Membrey's disappearance). Surely this could cause legal problems for future prosecutions? If so, why would they do it?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 00:03
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Just don't go in expecting some sort of apology. If the surgeon was the kind of guy who was going to do that, he would have done it already. And if he did, eventually he'd have it come back to haunt him if he were ever sued over the issue.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:15
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:Case in point: Fairly certain that will get tossed out-of-court based on assumption of risk (hell, isn't a baseball game the textbook assumption of risk example?). Plus, she has to prove her claim that the kid deliberately overthrew the pitcher.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
This case was discussed thoroughly in the mlb thread. It will come down to specific facts, but on it's face it could be a legit case. The assumption of risk angle depends on if she was a spectator. Roughly. She does not have to show the kid deliberately threw at her.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
Get my eye torn open and face bashed in, probably can't sue successfully. Go to a baseball game and get accidentally hit in the face by a baseball, sue for 150k.  Be married to someone that gets hit in the face by a baseball, sue for 150k
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:12
|
|
|
No one in this thread said you didn't have a case or whether you would be probably successful or not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:20
|
|
|
euphronius posted:No one in this thread said you didn't have a case or whether you would be probably successful or not. I was being sarcastic and using humor to illustrate the relative awfulness and ridiculousness of that woman and her husband's suit against the boy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
On it's face there is nothing seemingly ridiculous about it and it seems somewhat straightforward. If you went outside in the street and threw a ball up in the air which hit someone in the face and caused major medical damage you would expect to be sued. It is an open question as to whether she was a spectator and assumed any risk. That is a good question that is not really answered by the news articles. What IS ridiculous is that she had $150,000 in medical fees allegedly. euphronius fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Jun 27, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:42
|
|
|
front wing flexing posted:I'm fuming at the doctors office for the amazing amount of disrespect. The pain is gone but I can no longer wear contact lenses because the abrasion can open. You don't think I'm entitled to anything for the pain I endured for their negligence. I guess it's more of the principle of the matter as the doctor told me not to worry about a thing and now his office minions are basically saying it didn't happen. FYI doctors bitching about med mal claims. With the exception of cases where you chop off someone's dick, 98% of your cases come from this. They did a study up in Michigan and it turns out if you're not a dick to your patients, they don't sue you. http://www.annarbor.com/news/university-of-michigans-medical-error-policy-effectively-cut-costs-study-finds/ OP, sue that jackass. (By which I mean talk to an attorney) Also, it isn't that you wouldn't win against the guy who attacked you, it is that he has no money. No money means no money to pay the contingency fee.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
^^Of course I do this right when Nm posts.chemosh6969 posted:And if he did, eventually he'd have it come back to haunt him if he were ever sued over the issue. http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/health/healthcare/doctorsnurses/2010-08-20-medical-errors-malpractice_N.htmNot to mention the fact that Front Wing has explicitly stated that they're considering action because the surgeon's office is acting as you suggest. But now we're treading into more a more medical side of malpractice than a legal one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 02:55
|
|
|
Thermopyle posted:Yeah, I get that. I'm sure many people are just looking for a windfall from doctors. It just seems like a huge crying shame that there's a whole class of relatively-minor things that people can just get away with because its too expensive to do anything about. http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp Like with any documentary: The facts should be questioned, but the base story and the spin that has the majority of the population thinking it was frivolous speaks volumes about the powers behind "tort reform". Until people pointed it out to me on SA I always fully believed it was a shining case of frivolous lawsuits (and when I have told almost any other person about the doc they roll their eyes about the topic and by the end are shocked). When you dig into the story on most headline "frivolous" lawsuits it's usually just the base of the case "woman spills coffee on herself wins millions in a lawsuit" without details showing negligence.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:24
|
|
|
Also I don't know why dudes are telling you he's "probably" judgement proof. If he's got a car, house, tools, or a bank account with anything in it he might have enough to execute against and go a fair distance towards satisfying any judgement. He's in the military so I guess no guarantee on that stuff, but it's not like you got stabbed up by a hobo or something.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 04:37
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/Default.asp Third degree burns on her labia. And all she asked for was hospital bills to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:00
|
|
|
Also McDonalds served it at 90C which is too hot to drink or really do anything with other than spill on yourself and cause skin-melting burns in literal seconds. And had settled literally hundreds of claims by people who had done exactly that. But bluh bluh trial lawyers sucking the life out of our honourable doctors etc
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 05:17
|
|
|
Incredulous Red posted:http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/highschool-prep-rally/n-j-woman-seeks-150-000-13-old-105928919.html No, that kind of consortium was illegal under the common law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 12:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 16:35 |
|
|
joat mon posted:No, that kind of consortium was illegal under the common law. Courts still don't much care for sodomy?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2012 12:42
|
|
