|
Gobbeldygook posted:An unironic thank-you to you. I'm still planning to take up the time of a paralegal or two, but that helps further temper my expectations. Assuming the med-mal approach doesn't work out, is there any reason I couldn't do the small claims court idea? Prove me up a dollar value. Right here, right now. Throw your dick down on the table. Tell me how much this is worth and why.
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Another difference is that if someone talks or moves while they are supposed to be in general anesthesia, it means the anesthesiologist hosed-up hard-core. That is not the case with minimal/moderate sedation with Versed, as Choadmaster has pointed out. hosed up hard core?? A patient moved three times during a surgery yesterday and while that's a little much, patients moving during surgery is common enough - definitely not a serious failure as you claim. It's seems like you looked up a bunch of crap on the Internet and now consider yourself an expert but really you have nothing to complain about here. I'd listen to everyone else and just drop it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:20
|
|
|
If he gives the right attorney $25,000 to spend on prepping the case, the other side will settle for $10,000 in 'go away' money.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:25
|
|
|
dingledangle posted:hosed up hard core?? A patient moved three times during a surgery yesterday and while that's a little much, patients moving during surgery is common enough - definitely not a serious failure as you claim. It's seems like you looked up a bunch of crap on the Internet and now consider yourself an expert but really you have nothing to complain about here. I'd listen to everyone else and just drop it. How does that work with really delicate surgery where a patient moving could kill them? Do they add additional paralytics for those situations or is it just rolling the dice?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I've received Versed before for a minor procedure outside of the OR. The difference is that the anesthesiologist, without any prompting from me, kept me completely in the loop about when he was administering sedatives. Since you already knew what it would do anyway, what is the point of all this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:42
|
|
|
joat mon posted:If he gives the right attorney $25,000 to spend on prepping the case, the other side will settle for $10,000 in 'go away' money. But will he get an apology? baquerd posted:How does that work with really delicate surgery where a patient moving could kill them? Do they add additional paralytics for those situations or is it just rolling the dice? There are all kinds of other drugs the surgeon and anesthesiologist can use to block nerve signals, and of course hospitals have all sorts of equipment to hold people down if they have to. They're just not used unless they need to be. Nobody cares if the patient wiggles their toes during a tonsillectomy, and unnecessary drugs carry the risk (however small) of side effects.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:49
|
|
|
baquerd posted:How does that work with really delicate surgery where a patient moving could kill them? Do they add additional paralytics for those situations or is it just rolling the dice? If a patient has comorbidities the anesthesiologist may keep the gas light which can lead to patient movement. If the patient needs to be absolutely still they'll just ramp up the gas and use adjuvent anesthetics. But those "have to be absolutely still otherwise dies" surgeries are more rare than you think; I've never seen one.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The prescribing guidelines specifically say patients should be warned about the sedation and amnesia. What do the FDA labeling guidelines say? How did your not being warned impact you in a monetary fashion? Would you have not received it if you had known?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Xenoborg wins.Gobbeldygook posted:I've received Versed before for a minor procedure outside of the OR. You're just a self-entitled twit looking to waste people's time because you feel "violated" over not remembering 30 seconds of time prior to more sedation. gently caress you and your rotten kidney.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:18
|
|
|
Somebody brushed up against me the other day and I had forgotten it until they said something, how much can I get for pain and suffering? I shouldn't have to worry about someone brushing up against me!
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
Got a quick question for anyone familiar with dealing with Connecticut Estate laws. My father passed away and my brother is finalizing the estate. It's been a long and drawn out process and in the meantime, my grandparents sold their house. My father was partial owner on it and I've been told two contradicting things by two different lawyers about what happens with the money. The attorney handling the estate says that all the money needs to be frozen until the estate is settled while the attorney that handled the sale of the house says that only the amount needed to pay off any estate/sales taxes needs to be held and that I should have gotten the rest of it by now. Any opinions on which is one is right? Sorry if the details aren't specific enough for the question.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:48
|
|
|
dingledangle posted:hosed up hard core?? A patient moved three times during a surgery yesterday and while that's a little much, patients moving during surgery is common enough - definitely not a serious failure as you claim. It's seems like you looked up a bunch of crap on the Internet and now consider yourself an expert but really you have nothing to complain about here. I'd listen to everyone else and just drop it. Zauper posted:What do the FDA labeling guidelines say? CaptainScraps posted:Prove me up a dollar value. Right here, right now. Throw your dick down on the table. Tell me how much this is worth and why. The only damages would be emotional distress or punitive. Consider the example of McDonald's paying a $10 million settlement to Hindu's to settle claims related to their use of beef flavoring in its french fries. No-one was actually harmed by eating french fries with some miniscule amount of beef other than psychologically. But, again, I do not actually want money. Any and all monetary demands are means to an end. If they said, "We're sorry, we should have told you about what we were giving you and that it was optional. In the future, we'll do that for other patients", I would walk away completely happy and satisfied. Would I have accepted it if they had told me? I would have said no thank you. Which leads to - Xenoborg posted:Since you already knew what it would do anyway, what is the point of all this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:The only damages would be emotional distress or punitive. Your state does not allow for damages due to emotional distress, and there is no statutory basis for punitive damages. You have zero legal claim under any theory of law. You were not violated. You are not owed an apology. They did nothing wrong. You're just sort of not a smart person.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 19:55
|
|
|
Anyway to get emotional damages you one actually needs to be . . .you know . . emotionally damaged. Proving emotional damages is a hard thing and usually takes expert testimony and a documented case of emotional distress such that the person's life is negatively impacted to a degree beyond normal disappointment, regret or anger. Also McDonalds donated 10 million to some groups. There wasn't 10 million in emotional damages. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Somebody brushed up against me the other day and I had forgotten it until they said something, how much can I get for pain and suffering? I shouldn't have to worry about someone brushing up against me! This sort of raises an interesting point. Under the English legal system battery is actionable without needing to prove damage was suffered. Everyday contact is excluded, so a bump in public won't be covered, but otherwise the level of contact required very low.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
Robviously posted:Got a quick question for anyone familiar with dealing with Connecticut Estate laws. The estate attorney may be worried about possible late claims coming in? General legal facts: In my state all disbursements of bequests before an estate is closed are done at risk. They may have to be returned to cover estate costs. This can be an issue when, for example, the taxes were not done correctly at first or there is a late, but valid, claim made against the estate. euphronius fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:You're just sort of not a smart person. You should probably apologize for that statement if you don't want to be staring down the barrel of a frivolous law suit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:15
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:Your state does not allow for damages due to emotional distress, and there is no statutory basis for punitive damages. euphronius posted:Anyway to get emotional damages you one actually needs to be . . .you know . . emotionally damaged. Proving emotional damages is a hard thing and usually takes expert testimony and a documented case of emotional distress such that the person's life is negatively impacted to a degree beyond normal disappointment, regret or anger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
Damages is actually its own subject in law because it is so important. The law is different in each state and at the federal level so it is impossible to summarize really. The law will also change depending on why type of case it is. Often, as was mentioned, their availability is curtailed or removed by statute.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:25
|
|
|
Jesus christ, no for the love of God just loving stop. IIED/NIED cases have one of the toughest evidentiary barriers to prove precisely because idiots like you like to make those cases when nothing else works. 99.999999999% of the time, IIED/NIED is going to be an incidental claim on top of some other intentional tort. Which we've already told you, you don't have. Which should tell you, you don't have an emotional distress claim either. You have something like a dozen lawyers in this thread telling you that you are wrong. You won't admit it. You're like Pooky except worse. Just. loving. Let it go.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
His state might not even recognize those torts as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:
I'm not exactly an expert here, but the word 'should' does not mean 'must', or 'required by law'. It's also in the 'information for patients' section of the label, which is generally.. information for you. Additionally, the consent form you signed for your anesthesia would also give them a waiver for the drugs they administered for anesethesia.... including versed, because it was administered to reduce the rate and and amount of other drugs you would have to be administered. quote:intravenously for induction of general anesthesia, before administration of other anesthetic agents. With the use of narcotic premedication, induction of anesthesia can be attained within a relatively narrow dose range and in a short period of time. Intravenous midazolam can also be used as a component of intravenous supplementation of nitrous oxide and oxygen (balanced anesthesia);
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:47
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:You have something like a dozen lawyers in this thread telling you that you are wrong. A dozen and one, but it's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of not understanding the law. You being pissed off, upset, or offended is not a damage recognized in the sense of tort law. You have to articulate a real damage to have a claim in tort, and so far you have not articulated any The only recourse I see is that you report this issue to whatever state licensing board and maybe they will take some sort of corrective action. You will get zero money out of this, and you will get no apology. I do not feel, from what has been presented, that the doctors or nurses violated the duty of informed consent. Not your attorney and this is not legal advice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
On a completely seperate topic - can you attorneys who deal with high volume of paper suggest a durable, quality two\three hole puncher that is not counter mounted? We tear through things left and right here, we had a Carl two hole puncher and the metal punching rod literally split apart. Literally looked like this - but metal and much smaller. Sent about half dozen metal slivers into my fingers when I was taking it apart. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ojDvde2hpK8/Ts351k7Ij7I/AAAAAAAAA6o/jYxqg6ZUB3g/s1600/100_4321.JPG
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 20:53
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:Where are you getting that Missouri doesn't allow noneconomic damages? I didn't say noneconomic damages, you ignorant slut. I said emotional distress. Your definition of noneconomic damages includes a list of things. You experienced NOTHING on that list of things. You have no claim. With infinite resources, you literally have no claim whatsoever aside from fraud on the court. You are owed no apology because there was literally no breech of the standard of care. Spend your time looking up that standard, and get back to us about what they were required to tell you in order to have your informed consent. (hint: they got it) (I would like to point out that this guy lives in the SHOWME state) woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Nov 29, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 21:32
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The estate attorney may be worried about possible late claims coming in? I got a little bit of clarification that the money supposed to be coming my way would only be a portion of it. They were supposed to overestimate the taxes and divide the rest up between my brother and I. Don't know if that would change anything, but it certainly doesn't sound like there would be any other claims at the time being.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 21:58
|
|
|
xxEightxx posted:On a completely seperate topic - can you attorneys who deal with high volume of paper suggest a durable, quality two\three hole puncher that is not counter mounted? Sounds like a maintenance failure rather than a product failure. Replace the punch heads when they get dull. e.g., http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Doffice-products&field-keywords=carl+punch+heads
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:07
|
|
|
Robviously posted:I got a little bit of clarification that the money supposed to be coming my way would only be a portion of it. They were supposed to overestimate the taxes and divide the rest up between my brother and I. Don't know if that would change anything, but it certainly doesn't sound like there would be any other claims at the time being. Is the attorney also the executor? General legal facts not particularized to your situation but intended for education only: Usually it is the executor who makes the decision to make early, at-risk disbursements since they are the ones who are personally responsible if there is no money left in the estate to pay valid claims after early disbursements.
|
|
#
?
Nov 29, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
woozle wuzzle posted:I didn't say noneconomic damages, you ignorant slut. I said emotional distress.  bro.My initial reading was that the addition of "including, without limitation," was just another way of saying "including, but not limited to, the following". If that's not what that clause means, then what does it mean? The only other meaning I can come up with is that it means damages from those causes are unlimited in amount, but it seems like a really imprecise way of saying that. Zauper posted:Additionally, the consent form you signed for your anesthesia would also give them a waiver for the drugs they administered for anesethesia.... including versed, because it was administered to reduce the rate and and amount of other drugs you would have to be administered.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 02:37
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:I actually don't remember signing an anesthesia consent form/liability waiver, but I'm not confident enough to declare that I did not sign a waiver. I think this is a requirement before receiving it. I just had a baby and while I was going through the worst pain imaginable, they made me sign a waiver before they'd start an epidural.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 02:51
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:My initial reading was that the addition of "including, without limitation," was just another way of saying "including, but not limited to, the following". If I seem irrate, it's because people like you force the system to hold true victims in limbo. You're the boy crying wolf. I had a client last week who 6 months prior blacked out while walking from her bed to the bathroom a day after giving birth. She clocked her face full-force on the corner of a marble countertop, and lost half her teeth and her jaw won't close properly. She laid passed out in a pool of her blood and teeth for at least 15 minutes before being found. Liability arguments aside: she has non-economic damage, in addition to her out-of-pocket. That's what it's trying to define. The system exists to try and make her whole as best it can. You are already whole. There's nothing lost and nothing to fix. If you had to tell a judge in a literal way exactly what it is you lost, what is your answer? Our system is (rightfully) designed not to replace what it is you think you lost. woozle wuzzle fucked around with this message at 03:14 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook, have you had substance abuse issues in your past? If so, you might be able to get up to and including a local newspaper article about not having your preference of what to be anesthetized with. Otherwise, what do you think is going to happen? I'm honestly curious how this plays out. I'm not a doctor OR a lawyer, but you have both of them here (people you've ostensibly asked for advice, by the way) giving you medical and legal reasons why you should be happy for your successful operation and continue with your life. You mentioned that you don't want other people to have to go through what you went through, but it's really not clear that you went through anything but a nice nap. Again, if you're worried about controlling what goes in your body, I totally understand why you want to know exactly what you're getting - but that's your responsibility to inform your doctor about before you're getting prepped for surgery. Otherwise, I've been following this and I don't get why you need a memory of your medical procedure. Please do not labor under the pretense that you're fighting for somebody else - this is a personal issue of yours that might be best worked out in group/therapy setting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:17
|
|
|
Not sure if this is technically a legal question, though it does deal with fines and transport authorities- ignore if I'm posting this in the horribly wrong place. I got booked for hopping a turn style in Melbourne, Australia. I did so because a family let their kid run into the gate as my ticket was being validated, and since two people tried to go through at the same time, the gate didn't know what the gently caress was going on and closed every time I re approached it. Normally, you'd want to go to station staff of course, but the station was in the middle of a massive renovation with half the barriers being upgraded to a new ticketing system, meaning the guys manning the gates were flat out, and I was late for work. Stupid, yes, but I sure don't feel it is worth of a couple hundred bucks fine, same as if I hadn't have bought a ticket at all (the transport authority person checked my ticket and found it was indeed valid). How do I go about refuting/begging forgiveness for this one? It's a first offence (of any kind), and whilst a couple of hundred ain't much, I'm a student that has literally just moved house, I don't have poo poo, let alone poo poo to spare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:39
|
|
|
pork minstral posted:Well, hey. I'm posting in this thread. You NEED a lawyer. Do it loving yesterday. Go to court and tell them you want a lawyer. They'll almost certainly let you continue. Call a lawyer now. Especially with the immigration issue. How the hell did you get this far without a lawyer?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:There are two concepts that might be getting minced and causing confusion, and those 'damages' vs. 'injury' or 'harm'. Damages are either economic in nature (e.g. medical bills you suffered from the tort), and nonecomic (or "nonpecuniary")in nature (e.g. pain and suffering you suffered as a result of the tort). What both of those are based on is that a tort was commited against you. In order to show that, you must demonstrate that you were injured or harmed. What we are saying is that you have not demonstrated injury or harm. Any discussion of damages is thus irrelevant until such time that you can articulate an injury or harm. Put in the form of an example. I swing a baseball bat at you with the intent of hurting you. I connect to your arm, breaking it. Pursuant to MO jury instruction 3.13-2 civil battery is where, quote:The plaintiff alleges that the conduct of the defendant constituted a battery. Harmful contact? I think slugging you with a bat qualifies. Harmful contact cause physical impairment and pain? I broke your arm, im guessing it probably hurt too. Contact direct and immediate consequence of force exerted by me intentionally? I was sober etc, and i meant to do it. The tort is complete. A jury would most likely find me liable for civil battery. Now the jury would have to calculate damages... quote:3.4-1 Damages - General Emphasis is mine. Damages are not determined until liability is proven, which it has since the jury found me liable for civil battery. Hopefully now we got the seperation of a tort and damages out of the way lets apply that to MO informed consent. Jury instruction 3.8-4 quote:The theory of informed consent imposes a duty upon a physician that is completely separate and distinct from (his/her) responsibility to skillfully diagnose and treat the patient’s ills. A physician has a duty to disclose all known material risks of the proposed procedure. A material risk is risk that a reasonably prudent person in the patient’s position would have found significant in deciding whether or not to submit to the proposed procedure. The physician has a duty to give a patient whose situation permits it all information material to the decision to undergo the proposed procedure. This duty includes a responsibility to advise the patient of feasible alternatives. The duty to warn of alternatives exists only when there are feasible alternatives available. Emphasis is mine. The fact that you have no injury means the tort fails. We don't reach any analysis of what your damages are because of that failure. Hopefully that helps clear things up. xxEightxx fucked around with this message at 03:59 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:
Objection, nonresponsive. GIVE ME A DOLLAR FIGURE AND TELL ME WHY.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Alterian posted:I think this is a requirement before receiving it. I just had a baby and while I was going through the worst pain imaginable, they made me sign a waiver before they'd start an epidural. xxEightxx posted:... woozle wuzzle posted:If you had to tell a judge in a literal way exactly what it is you lost, what is your answer? Our system is (rightfully) designed not to replace what it is you think you lost. My initial reaction after realizing I abruptly blacked out after being administered Versed (which was the day I got home and was writing down my experiences) was not "That loving rear end in a top hat roofied me!", but disbelief that he had accidentally given me a black-out dose of benzos. As I thought about it more, that seemed less likely. It's literally his job to knock people out and wake them up afterwards. If I blacked out, he must have wanted to make me black out. But why would he do that without making it clear that was what he was about to do? I couldn't think of any good reason why he would have deliberately blacked me out when I was about to go into the OR and be put under. It was only later that this metastasized into anger. To a lesser degree, I am deeply concerned and distressed about whatever I might have said while amnesic. I have no idea what incredibly embarrassing or incriminating personal facts I might have shared while I was out that I would not have shared if it hadn't been administered to me. Supposedly nothing out of sorts happened, but I'm supposed to just trust the doctors who I couldn't trust to tell me when they were going to incapacitate me? Unfortunately, I don't think a court would put much monetary value on either of those. --- It hasn't come across very well, but I really have taken the (legal) knowledge I've been given to heart and don't think there's any real possibility I'll be able to force an apology out of them through any civil action. Particularly, xxEightxx's explanation caused a click in my utilitarian soul that eliminated any desire on my part to try to pursue legal action. I'm pissed as gently caress at the means they used, but I'm forced to admit that the end medical result wasn't bad. I am probably going to settle for writing a letter specifically to the anesthesiologist and nurse explaining why I'm upset with their actions and asking them to give people a heads-up in the future before they render them insensible. Edit: What Fun posted:Please do not labor under the pretense that you're fighting for somebody else - this is a personal issue of yours that might be best worked out in group/therapy setting. Gobbeldygook fucked around with this message at 06:20 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 05:58
|
|
|
Gobbeldygook posted:That was quite helpful, thank you. I'm surprised there's no way for me to read that description of informed consent without using Lexis or dropping by a legal library. "The Court does not prepare or publish a compilation of its Missouri Approved Instructions for civil cases. Nevertheless, such compilations are available from various commercial and other entities." I'm sure you are a lovely person Gobbeldygook but this right here is what kills me. Just because the law is written in English and a person has a right to represent themselves, does not make them a lawyer. I deal every day with clients who google poo poo and want me to take a case to the Supreme Court on some misunderstanding of the law. No one walks in the the OR and says "Doc, I know you've performed this surgery 100x before but this time lets do it my way". "I saw a great site that said blah blah". Edit: On second thought, you are doing that. You paid an anesthesiologist to knock you out so you didn't feel it when you were cut open. He/she did that but your freaked out about how he/she did it. He/she knocked you out and woke you back up. With what medical training do you judge the anesthesiologists use of medicine? Get over yourself. Roger_Mudd fucked around with this message at 06:30 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 06:24
|
|
|
Diplomaticus posted:Jesus christ, no for the love of God just loving stop. IIED/NIED cases have one of the toughest evidentiary barriers to prove precisely because idiots like you like to make those cases when nothing else works. 99.999999999% of the time, IIED/NIED is going to be an incidental claim on top of some other intentional tort. Which we've already told you, you don't have. Which should tell you, you don't have an emotional distress claim either. I actually had a pretty solid IIED claim come up about 5 years ago, but it's so hard to prove damages (and the guy was likely judgment proof anyways) that it wasn't worth pursuing. I sort of wish I had anyways just because they're so rare.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 06:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 19:08 |
|
|
E: nevermind you're a retard and all the effort on the world would be lost on you One time I had surgery and I told a nurse in a stage whisper "I don't give no fucks!" Because Versed is hilarious and you obviously hate life. BonerGhost fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Nov 30, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2012 06:26
|
|