|
D34THROW posted:Here's a TV-inspired hypothetical for medical lawgoons. A pharm rep on Dopesick used it as a threat to get a pharmacy to continue carrying OxyContin. I'm not 100% sure if the threat was ever really used but Google is giving me bupkis on whether it's plausible. Pure speculation, but the only plausible grounds I can come up with are is if the requirement to carry and sell a particular drug, or whatever drug they are told to carry and sell, is somewhere in a general distribution contract between the pharmacy and the supplier. Something like Walgreens and Pfizer have a national contract that says, "Walgreens agrees to stock and fill orders of whatever Pfizer drugs that Pfizer sends them." And since Oxy falls under that definition, they might be in breach for refusing. But assuming no such contract, I can't conceive of a legitimate basis for such a lawsuit.
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2021 19:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
daslog posted:Hypothetically speaking, No way that guy would get close to $75k with those facts, which don't even mention whether he was fired or whatever. Probably $5k tops, and that's after his case is likely dismissed by the administrative agency right out the gate and he has to scrape together money to hire an attorney. It's incredulous because these cases are almost never as simple or frivolous as people make them out to be. It's often the employment equivalent of the McDonald's coffee spill lawsuit that everyone thinks was just some lady scamming easy money. An outsider hears a simplified or possibly false account of the "facts" and assumes it's all a scam. Unsurprisingly, this is usually the version put forward by employers and their counsel. If the guy knows he is really not being discriminated against (which the example assumes), then why wouldn't he make up more convincing examples of harassment than one vague reference to chicken? If he believes that it's discrimination, then it's not a scam, and he's entitled to pursue it, but this scenario as presented is even flimsier than the flimsiest sort of cases that usually crop up. Assuming he's earnest about taking legal action, then I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of demeaning or heinous comments and behavior from the manager start to surface that was left out of the anecdote. There are certainty plenty of very weak discrimination cases, but it's like with the ADA discussion: we put the burden of enforcing anti discrimination laws squarely on the people who are getting hosed over and have the least means to do so. And when a fraction of them are successful to some small degree, we assume they're milking the system at the expense of good, upstanding American companies. Congrats! You can now file a lawsuit (likely years after you began the administrative process)! Oops you're unemployed and made too little for lawyers to take your case on commission. Good luck! The system works as intended. Thesaurus fucked around with this message at 05:11 on Dec 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 05:08
|
|
|
I knew a guy who tried to rob a pharmacy for some xanax. He threatened the pharmacist with a knife. The pharmacist said okay hold on one minute, then walked away from the counter and called the police The guy stood there, waiting for the pharmacist To give him the Xanax, until the cops showed up
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 08:43
|
|
|
EwokEntourage posted:I knew a guy who tried to rob a pharmacy for some xanax. He threatened the pharmacist with a knife. The pharmacist said okay hold on one minute, then walked away from the counter and called the police I would too if I was in bad enough shape to pull a knife on somebody for a few bars. Benzos withdrawal kills people and it's not fun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 10:00
|
|
|
Not a legal question exactly, but relevant to the thread:quote:The new owners of the bar are longtime friends and Village regulars Matt Fink, Shawn Quinn, and Tom Oberwetter who hope to reopen the Village Bar — for the first time in more than 18 months — as early as Dec. 18.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 14:21
|
|
|
Hmmm…bourbon…brownest of the brown liquors…what’s that?? You want me to drink you? But I’m in the middle of a trial! Cf. Care to join me in a belt of scotch? It’s 9:30 in the morning. Yeah but I haven’t slept in days.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:No way that guy would get close to $75k with those facts, which don't even mention whether he was fired or whatever. Probably $5k tops, and that's after his case is likely dismissed by the administrative agency right out the gate and he has to scrape together money to hire an attorney.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:Say you got a guy with 3,000,000 in assets and 2,500,000 in liabilities staring down a likely 1,000,000 judgment. Okay same question but instead of 3m in assets and 2.5m in liabilities its 3m in assets and only 1m in liabilities. None of this poo poo make any sense. I think the guy might be mentally disabled or maybe his lawyer is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 00:56
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:Remember that this guy is a car salesman, so there's a good chance given his moral foundation and relationship with the truth that the actual fact pattern is closer to "put on a white hood and burned a cross on the guy's lawn with my buddies." no joke, the craziest harassment cases always seem to arise from sales jobs in general, and car dealerships in specific. They're hotbeds for crazies
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 01:36
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Pure speculation, but the only plausible grounds I can come up with are is if the requirement to carry and sell a particular drug, or whatever drug they are told to carry and sell, is somewhere in a general distribution contract between the pharmacy and the supplier. Let me add more context. The key part of the lawsuit is this: 2 years ago, a customer came in and asked for his salesman, Paul. The person he spoke to said something to the effect of "We have two Paul's here, Paul X and Paul Y. " the customer replied I don't know which one. The person then replied was he white or black?" The customer said "Black" and the employee said ,"ok Paul Black then."
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 01:54
|
|
|
This is pretty vague as I don't remember the details and don't personally know anybody involved. Several years back, two guys in a bar got into it and both willingly stepped outside to fight. One of the guys hit the other, and the other fell down and cracked his head open on a parking block and died. The hitter got charged with murder or manslaughter or something. Not sure how the trial went. The question here is: how is that different than two boxers stepping into the ring or two MMA fighters who are both willingly fighting each other? Is it as simple as signing a disclaimer?
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:Here's a TV-inspired hypothetical for medical lawgoons. A pharm rep on Dopesick used it as a threat to get a pharmacy to continue carrying OxyContin. I'm not 100% sure if the threat was ever really used but Google is giving me bupkis on whether it's plausible. I don't think you can sue your vet for not selling you your Invermectin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 02:46
|
|
|
I dunno, Donald gave us the Right to Try (Horse Dewormer) law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:16
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:This is pretty vague as I don't remember the details and don't personally know anybody involved. It's going to depend on the laws of the state. Some have "mutual combat" laws where you more or less can consent to a fight, up to various limits that might prohibit consent to a fight that involves weapons or continues after one person gives up. Some might have a law that says "no fighting period, unless you have a permit signed by the Office of Fight Approval". In practice though, if somebody dies even in a fully sanctioned and lawful sport, there's going to be legal fallout at least at a civil level.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 03:44
|
|
|
It depends. Off the top of my head the question would be whether death or serious bodily injury is a reasonable consequence of your actions. Like I can throw a surprise party and the surprisee can die of a heart attack. Even though my actions contributed to causing his death, nobody could have reasonably foreseen that and there was a secondary cause (heart disease) that contributed also. At a certain point everything on the planet and every action we take is theoretically capable of causing or contributing to someone's death, but there is a limit to whether the law holds someone criminally responsible for unforeseen consequences. Crimes also require a mental state. Manslaughter typically requires reckless state of mind. The hallmark of recklessness is whether the conduct or consequence constituted a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person. The "gross deviation" part is what separates accidents from crimes. Think random traffic car accident vs drunk driving death. Did the person throwing the punch do so in a manner that was a gross deviation from what a reasonable would throw in that situation? In that scenario I would ask if the puncher was wearing, say, bread knuckles. My auto correct said bread knuckles and that's fantastic. Brass knuckles. Or got on top of the decedent and landed several blows while the guy was unconscious laying on the pavement. Or whether the decedent tripped on some external thing. The devil is in the details. And the devil is in the details of the criminal statute. Is this in a state with extremely strict laws where reckless killing is a Murder 1*? Or in Alaska where a reckless killing gets you two years on an ankle monitor? Or in NY where the police ain't got time for something like two idiots in a fist fight, they have fifteen gang executions today they need to solve? *In these states it tragically depends on skin color of those involved too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 07:27
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:This is pretty vague as I don't remember the details and don't personally know anybody involved. This is a very brass and butter question, knuckles. Firstly, those situations are not equivalent. Two contracted professional fighters entering into a professional bout of athletic competition in accordance with a strict set of rules, under supervision and with a referee matters a lot compared to a drunken, spur of the moment piece of criminal street violence between two people who wish eachother actual harm. And then you add a death. From a societal standpoint the second is an overall source of unrest, injury and usage of societal health and police resources and is criminal behaviour at the outset for that reason. That said, it is jurisdiction dependent. If there is consent like mentioned previously, it matters what type of consent and if that consent is even legal. For the longest time boxing was technically illegal in Norway because you couldn't consent to be hit and or injured. They changed it, but it's still kinda iffy in relation to severe athletic injuries. So, mental gymnastics where in one is a societal no no and the other is "sports". Basically the difference. That said, having been into MMA it's really not the same as a drunken brawl in the street. The amount of control and athleticism that goes into a bout is un loving real and injuries are way less common than any kind of brawl situation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 08:20
|
|
|
Nice piece of fish posted:For the longest time boxing was technically illegal in Norway because you couldn't consent to be hit and or injured. Being Norway, the nonconsensual burning, murdering, raping and pillaging was just fine though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 14:45
|
|
|
joat mon posted:Being Norway, the nonconsensual burning, murdering, raping and pillaging was just fine though. They made sure to do that outside of Norwegian jurisdiction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
Several Australian jurisdictions introduced legislation specifically to make sure it was a criminal offence to kill someone in one drunken punch since manslaughter wasn't working so well for that situation. In general you can't consent to grievous bodily harm or death though so even if you're mutually fighting that doesn't mean you get to kill someone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 14:56
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:Here's a TV-inspired hypothetical for medical lawgoons. A pharm rep on Dopesick used it as a threat to get a pharmacy to continue carrying OxyContin. I'm not 100% sure if the threat was ever really used but Google is giving me bupkis on whether it's plausible. Plan B, but the legal consequences came from the pharmacist refusing to fill even though the pharmacy had it stocked and refusing to return the prescription. Not sure if this is what you had in mind though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
DTaeKim posted:Plan B, but the legal consequences came from the pharmacist refusing to fill even though the pharmacy had it stocked and refusing to return the prescription. Not sure if this is what you had in mind though. No, that completely makes sense, with it being in stock and refusing to return the script. I'm talking about refusing to stock a medication on XYZ grounds (personal, ethical, moral, etc). I thought it sounded like a bullshit threat and that's what it is. This poo poo is why my wife hates watching TV with me sometimes 
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
I mean they make it pretty clear in the show that it was a bullshit threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 17:30
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:They made sure to do that outside of Norwegian jurisdiction. Yeah there's a reason they called it the "Dane Law"
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 17:43
|
|
|
sullat posted:Yeah there's a reason they called it the "Dane Law" No that was because nobody could understand it
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 18:24
|
|
|
D34THROW posted:No, that completely makes sense, with it being in stock and refusing to return the script. I'm talking about refusing to stock a medication on XYZ grounds (personal, ethical, moral, etc). I thought it sounded like a bullshit threat and that's what it is. Still would be Plan B. In the United States, some states have laws requiring pharmacies to stock it while other states have conscience clauses allowing a pharmacist to refuse to stock certain medications. That said, you're likely to run into this with independent pharmacies rather than a chain pharmacy. So the answer is it depends on the state.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 18:29
|
|
|
Suppose someone living in oklahoma, who is elderly and infirm, and had an apartment fire and had to move to a temporary place without internet, had their son "get the internet working" which involved tethering their computer to their cell phone using Google Fi, which normally costs next to nothing but if you use your computer all day every day for a month on it, runs up a $900 bill. This hypothetical cancer-surviving grandmother who has just lost everything and has no renter's insurance and is drat near destitute, has her paypal cleaned out by the phone provider because it was set on autopay. She appeals but they immediately deny the appeal because she admits she really did tether her phone and use all that data. They have a program called Bill Protection which if grandma had, would have limited her to $80 maximum (and throttled her data connection after a certain limit). Apparently without that enabled, the sky is the limit. Could there be any sort of federal or state laws that limit what a phone company can bilk from a sickly near-homeless woman who didn't know what the implications were of running her internet over her phone for several weeks? I know the answer is probably "nope" but I am hoping I'm wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 22:56
|
|
|
Could there be such a law? Sure! Will there be? Ehhhhhh…
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 23:21
|
|
|
Whoever put a clueless grandma on Fi should be paying for that, jesus christ
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 23:50
|
|
|
Javid posted:Whoever put a clueless grandma on Fi should be paying for that, jesus christ Hypothetically let's say it was was her other son, who doesn't have Fi, or maybe her daughter, I'm not sure. Neither of them have any money either. Probably in this story, both of them assumed she had that protection turned on too, or that it was the default.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Hypothetically they should cover the bill, jeez.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 00:12
|
|
|
The phone company provided a service for a month that was paid for, they aren't going to walk that back. Those kids need to set up an installment plan with grandma.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 02:03
|
|
|
Is there any actual legal bar on using the title "Dr." without having a doctorate? I don't plan on giving expert advice in any regulated field, I just think it'd be kinda cool if my utility bills were addressed to Dr. Thuryl instead of Ms. Thuryl. I'm in Australia but I'm also not planning on actually doing this so I'm mostly curious if a law regulating the use of titles exists anywhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 05:07
|
|
|
No clue about Australia, so here's some useless information about America. You can call yourself whatever you want. I can say I'm a board-certified brain surgeon if I want to impress people at my high school reunion. But if I try to perform brain surgery, I'm going to jail because I am not in fact a doctor. It's the doing that gets you in trouble, not the bragging. There may be exceptions. I'm not actually a lawyer. There was for instance a law against pretending to be a veteran, and the supreme court killed it on free speech grounds. It's still illegal to pretend to be a veteran and fraudulently get some benefit from it, but calling myself a Navy Captain at the high school reunion is not going to get me in (legal) trouble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 06:29
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:Is there any actual legal bar on using the title "Dr." without having a doctorate? I don't plan on giving expert advice in any regulated field, I just think it'd be kinda cool if my utility bills were addressed to Dr. Thuryl instead of Ms. Thuryl. I'm in Australia but I'm also not planning on actually doing this so I'm mostly curious if a law regulating the use of titles exists anywhere. (Not a lawyer, but a health practitioner so somewhat familiar with this area of Australian law) In Australia, the title Medical Practitioner or Medical Specialist is a protected title under the health practitioner regulation national law (like Psychologist, Pharmacist, etc.) 'Doctor' isn't (and is an honorific for medical practitioners, as it is for most health professions that use it), and doesn't have any inherent restrictions in use (but might in specific contexts, e.g. engaging in misleading and deceptive conduct in trade or commerce in violation of a state Fair Trading Act; or committing fraud).
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 07:02
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:No clue about Australia, so here's some useless information about America. You can call yourself whatever you want. I can say I'm a board-certified brain surgeon if I want to impress people at my high school reunion. But if I try to perform brain surgery, I'm going to jail because I am not in fact a doctor. It's the doing that gets you in trouble, not the bragging. There may be exceptions. I'm not actually a lawyer. What's the right joke for this? We all already know you aren't a navy captain, Mr. von Trapp. If you hadn't spent all your time picking little white flowers high in the Alps perhaps you could have learnt to sail a ship. Yeah but it might get you conscripted by the Germans. BigHead fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Dec 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 07:09
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:Is there any actual legal bar on using the title "Dr." without having a doctorate? I don't plan on giving expert advice in any regulated field, I just think it'd be kinda cool if my utility bills were addressed to Dr. Thuryl instead of Ms. Thuryl. I'm in Australia but I'm also not planning on actually doing this so I'm mostly curious if a law regulating the use of titles exists anywhere. In Pennsylvania which is somewhat north west of WA: Section 422.10 - Unauthorized practice of medicine and surgery No person other than a medical doctor shall engage in any of the following conduct except as authorized or exempted in this act: (1) Practice medicine and surgery. (2) Purport to practice medicine and surgery. (3) Hold forth as authorized to practice medicine and surgery through use of a title, including, but not necessarily limited to, medical doctor, doctor of medicine, doctor of medicine and surgery, doctor of a designated disease, physician, physician of a designated disease, or any abbreviation for the foregoing. (4) Otherwise hold forth as authorized to practice medicine and surgery. 63 P.S. § 422.10
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 12:54
|
|
|
Some people call Steve Miller the Doctor of Love and I don't think he has faced any legal repercussions even though he does not, in fact, have a degree in Love.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 13:51
|
|
|
They don’t say the medical doctor of love
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 13:53
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:Some people call Steve Miller the Doctor of Love and I don't think he has faced any legal repercussions even though he does not, in fact, have a degree in Love. Much like I am a doctor of law and will someday be a doctor of philosophy, I cannot hold myself out as a medical doctor. Similarly, a medical doctor would get in trouble for advertising themself as a lawyer if they are not also a lawyer. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Dec 16, 2021 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:05 |
|
|
Mr. Nice! posted:Much like I am a doctor of law and will someday be a doctor of philosophy, I cannot hold myself out as a medical doctor. Yeah. They wear white coats, we wear white shoes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2021 18:06
|
|
