 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / General / February 2004How do I tell if a doctor has been sued?
I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of times. Is there a register of some sort I can look up? >I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of >times. > >Is there a register of some sort I can look up? I don't know about in Australia, but the answer in the U.S. is "no" for good reason. The number of lawsuits filed against a physician is generally an unreliable method for judging the competency of a physician. Same goes for "report cards" for hospitals that judge hospitals based on complication rates -- the hospitals that are advanced in their fields and take on the challenging cases will register as "worse" because of higher complication rates when they may actually provide overall much better care and chance for success when adjusted for severity of the condition being treated. PF Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession, suggest that a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? Or should one simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'? Will > >I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of > >times. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > PF >Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. >How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession, suggest that >a person 'check out' the competency of a physician (or health care facility)? >Or should one simply assume/hope that person is not one of the 'bad ones'? The best way is to ask other patients, other professionals such as nurses and other docs if this was someone they would send their family to. . That certainly tells you more in most cases than suits. -- "Distracting a politician from governing is like distracting a bear from eating your baby." --PJ O'Rourke > >Sounds like a direct quote from the AMA. > >How would you, as a mbr of the medical profession, suggest that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and other docs if this was someone they would send their family to. . That > certainly tells you more in most cases than suits. Would concur with you, Kurt. Humbly, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com It depends on which state you are in. In California, a malpractice judgement becomes a matter of public record when it exceeds $50,000 or something like that. Do a search on the medical board of your state;, look up a physician you want to see, and you can probably see which school he went to and what year he graduated from medical school, though all that varies from state to state. A good source for credentialing is www.abms.org. Register,and you can determine if your provider is board certified in his specialty. Good Luck Kent > I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of > times. > > Is there a register of some sort I can look up? > I want to pick a surgeon or doctor who has been sued the least number of > times. > > Is there a register of some sort I can look up? It depends on the state you are in. Your address tells me you're in Australia; so I can't help you. However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has been sued doesn't always correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get sued fairly frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to mind, as does trauma or neurosurgery.)  SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has >been sued doesn't always correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at >least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get sued fairly >frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to >mind, as does trauma or neurosurgery.) At least in the US, there are a couple of studies that show technical expertise has little relationship to getting sued. A**holes are more likely to get sued even if they did nothing wrong. ________________________________________________________ Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as representing Mr. Ullman's own, for indeed he has none. If anyone objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not only to retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made them in the first place. ________________________________________________________ >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has >been sued doesn't always correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at >least in the U.S. Certain high-risk specialties get sued fairly >frequently, no matter how good the doctor is. (High risk OB comes to >mind, as does trauma or neurosurgery.) And also, the number of times one has been sued is not as important as the outcome of those suits. Anyone can file a suit over anything. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com> "Ex Tristitia Virtus" -------------------------------------- NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician. ======================================== No one is asking how lawsuits have been filed. The fundamental question is how many judgments of a significant dollar amount have been awarded against the doctor. > >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has > >been sued doesn't always correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > ======================================== Dr. Fink: What you say is not totally correct. For example, you say that "Anyone can file a suit over anything." In most states the 'potential' plaintiff must first convince an attorney that their complaint is credible. And do not assume this step to be an easy one. This is not, by any means, the same as a rear end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser. As you know, most med mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, and if the attorney - most often along with other partners and medical associates - isn't totally convinced of the feasible of a successful suit, s/he will not file. If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must then be sanctioned by a qualified physician. In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in advance). And, believe me, they are not cheap. Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc. To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, years of a person's life, hours and hours of depositions, incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their family, and this is only a short list. So... I respectfully disagree, doc. Best regards. Will - whose been there. > >However, let me just point out that the number of times a doctor has > >been sued doesn't always correlate with how good (or bad) he/she is, at [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > ======================================== >To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of >dollars, years of a person's life, hours and hours of depositions, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Best regards. > Will - whose been there. Partially true, but no cigar. There are people out there who file lawsuits for recreational purposes. One sued me 20 years ago for prescribing epilepsy medication while he was in the hospital on a psychiatric hold (for assaulting his neighbor). He accused me of "poisoning" him and "false imprisonment" because the state held him for 72 hours for psychiatric observation. He forced my malpractice carrier to spend money for a defense lawyer and for that lawyer to appear at three different hearings when this nutcase appealed the dismissal of the case all the way to the California Supreme Court. Some states have "panels" which "certify" suits for merit, but many of those panels are nothing more than rubber stamps and the suits can proceed even in the absence of a certificate of merit. I have been there also..... Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com> "Ex Tristitia Virtus" -------------------------------------- NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician. ======================================== Bob: There are certainly people out there (patients) who are, let us just say, less than honorable, who conjure up spurious accusations against doctors and medical entities (and other businesses and individuals as well) simply for the purpose of extracting ill-gotten funds. Of course. I readily admit that... after all, it is quite obvious. Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and medical entities) out there who are, let us again say, less than honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest at heart? Best regards. Will (It seems you are in the majority, which incl. the 'good guys'.) > >To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of > >dollars, years of a person's life, hours and hours of depositions, [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > ======================================== >Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and >medical entities) out there who are, let us again say, less than >honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I >suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest >at heart? Speaking only for myself, that goes w/o saying. However, suits are very lousy way to make that distinction. I think that is all the Docs were trying to say. -- Any ideas expressed on this account should not be taken as representing Mr. Ullman's own, for indeed he has none. If anyone objects to any statements he makes, he is quite prepared not only to retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made them in the first place. >>Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and >>medical entities) out there who are, let us again say, less than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > retract them, but also to vehemently deny under oath that he made > them in the first place. I believe there is a registry in the US, available to MD's only, which allows the doctor to check to see if a potential new patient has a history or pattern or changing doctors a lot then suing them. Maybe THIS source could tell you if and where there is information the other way round. >Will you agree there is also a certain percentage of doctors (and >medical entities) out there who are, let us again say, less than >honorable, who only focus on the money (and other fleshly vices, I >suppose), who cut corners and do not have the patient's best interest >at heart? Agreed. Best, Bob Robert A. Fink, M.D., FACS, P. C. 2500 Milvia Street Suite 222 Berkeley, California 94704-2636 USA Telephone: 510-849-2555 FAX: 510-849-2557 <http://www.rafink.com> "Ex Tristitia Virtus" -------------------------------------- NOTE: The above message is not to be considered as "medical advice". Medical advice can be given only after a "hands-on" examination of the patient by a physician. ======================================== > Dr. Fink: > What you say is not totally correct. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > to be an easy one. This is not, by any means, the same as a rear > end collision, filed by some ambulance chaser. Not entirely true. It depends on the state in which the suit is brought and the tendency of juries in that state, as well as the intestinal fortitude of the hospitals to go to court. I've witnessed some lawsuits over some pretty frivolous things. They all lost, but they all made it to court. > As you know, most med mal actions are filed on a contingency basis, > and if the attorney - most often along with other partners and medical > associates - isn't totally convinced of the feasible of a successful > suit, s/he will not file. On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, or the malpractice insurance company to settle, rather than going through the expense of a jury trial, he may well do so. It's called going after the low-lying fruit. > If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must > then be sanctioned by a qualified physician. Oh, please. This part is rarely a problem. There are a bunch of physicians who will attest to the validity of almost any lawsuit--for a fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who later make tons of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial. > In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in > advance). And, believe me, they are not cheap. This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to pay them enough. > Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc. Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point. > To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of > dollars, years of a person's life, hours and hours of depositions, > incredible and unimaginable stress to the person and their family, and > this is only a short list. Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is usually not to get to the courtroom. In fact, if such a suit goes to the courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than not. The goal is to intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling to "make it go away." A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight rather quickly and are more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile questioning that will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty crossexamination they are likely to face in court. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" > > Dr. Fink: > > What you say is not totally correct. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > through the expense of a jury trial, he may well do so. It's called > going after the low-lying fruit. Do you have any references at all to the frequency of these occurances? I cannot imagine that this hardly ever happens, if at all -- unless there is a potentially 'really bad' situation. In such a case, it would be to the doctor's or medical facility's advantage to 'settle out'. > > If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must > > then be sanctioned by a qualified physician. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > fee of course. They're usually the same physicians who later make tons > of money testifying as expert witnesses if the case goes to trial. Can you name a few of these less than honorable physicians? > > In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in > > advance). And, believe me, they are not cheap. > > This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to > pay them enough. But think this through. If a person doesn't have a valid claim, why would they 'lay down the money' to the tune - usually - of tens of thousands of dollars. And remember, they (the potential plaintiff or the informed lawyer) must be prepared to pay for plane fares, hotel expenses, etc. And this incl. the depositions that will occur for a cpl of years even before the trial begins. I think it would be a good thing if all of the details of this entire exercise were exposed to the public. It is not, apparently, as everyone thinks. > > Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc. > > Again, true, if the suit ever gets to that point. Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all the way up to the day before the trial is to begin... thereby breaking the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is paying the bills) and 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare occurance, by the way. (sorry for the bad grammer. hope you followed that. long day.) > > To get an action into a courtroom can cost hundreds of thousands of > > dollars, years of a person's life, hours and hours of depositions, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is > usually not to get to the courtroom. Are you sure about this? If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly the goal. > In fact, if such a suit goes to the > courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than not. And why do you think that is the case? > The goal is to > intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling > to "make it go away." You mean like Michael Jackson? Or hundreds of other guilty parties? Sorry, you brought it up. > A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most > doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight rather quickly and are > more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile questioning > that will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty > crossexamination they are likely to face in court. And this doesn't apply to the patient... who has already gone through a trial of their own (medically, that is). I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against doctors (or any other person or entity) the scum of the earth, and they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ??? We both may agree on that. Will >> On the other hand, if the attorney thinks he can get a doctor, hospital, >> or the malpractice insurance company to settle, rather than going [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >case, it would be to the doctor's or medical facility's advantage to >'settle out'. I have no references, and frankly I'm not going to bother looking for them because I'm surprised anyone doubts this is common. Suing with the sole objective of a settlement is a very common strategy, and not just in medicine. The unfortunate reality is that paying off a settlement is often cheaper than defeating an obviously groundless lawsuit. I was the victim of such a suit many years ago, and had to pay to beat it out of my own pocket because it was clear my insurance company was going to settle even though they knew it was total BS. (They told me exactly that.) >> This much is true, although all it usually takes to convince them is to >> pay them enough. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >expenses, etc. And this incl. the depositions that will occur for a >cpl of years even before the trial begins. Their gamble is they won't have to pay all these things. The whole strategy is to offer a settlement that's less than the cost of going to trial which, as you point out, is very expensive. Go slip and fall in any department store and pretend to injure your back. Now sue them and offer to settle for $10K. Fact is, they'll probably take the offer because simply preparing for trial will cost them more than $10K. >Right. Which includes dismissal by the judge on summary judgment, all >the way up to the day before the trial is to begin... thereby breaking >the plaintiff or the attorney (whoever is paying the bills) and >'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare >occurance, by the way. I think it is a rare occurrence. >> Yes, but that really misses the point. The goal of such lawsuits is >> usually not to get to the courtroom. > >Are you sure about this? If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly >the goal. The point is, it's *not* a meaningful action. It's extortion via the legal system and it happens every day. >I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against >doctors (or any other person or entity) the scum of the earth, and >they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ??? > >We both may agree on that. Yeah, we probably all agree, but I think you vastly underestimate how common this is. > > > If the person clears this hurdle, (in most states) their claim must > > > then be sanctioned by a qualified physician. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Can you name a few of these less than honorable physicians? Oh, come on now. Some of these "malpractice expert witnesses" run their own websites. There are companies that advertise for their services. They're not hard to find. Here's one place to start: http://www.expertwitness.com There are many more such sites, and at least a few sites run by the doctors themselves. > > > In addition, medical experts must be located, convinced and paid (in > > > advance). And, believe me, they are not cheap. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > expenses, etc. And this incl. the depositions that will occur for a > cpl of years even before the trial begins. The point is, the plaintiff usually doesn't pay these upfront expenses. The lawfirm accepting the case on contingency does. All it takes is one or two big payouts to cover these expenses for all the smaller losing cases, along with a hefty profit. The expenses for these lawsuits that lose are just the cost of doing business to get the ones that win. True, even a contingency lawyer won't take a case that he clearly has no chance of winning, but they will take on somewhat risky cases on this basis. > I think it would be a good thing if all of the details of this entire > exercise were exposed to the public. It is not, apparently, as > everyone thinks. Not a bad idea, but it'll never happen. > > > Then come the costs of depositions, travel, etc, etc, etc. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'teaching them a lesson' not soon forgotten... which is not a rare > occurance, by the way. Yes, but the entire point is NOT to make it to court, to get a settlement before the case ever goes to court. If the case makes it to court, the plaintiff has a good chance of losing in most malpractice cases. > (sorry for the bad grammer. hope you followed that. long day.) > > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Are you sure about this? Yes. Quite sure. It's not as if this isn't a tactic limited to malpractice cases. It's used in *all* areas of civil tort law. Lawyers know that defending against a lawsuit is expensive and time-consuming. They know that even relatively well-off people often don't have the resources to do it and that some companies will do a cost-benefit analysis and decide it makes more sense to settle. Why is this so hard for you to understand? >If it is a meaningful action, that is exactly > the goal. Not necessarily. Indeed, if it is a meaningful action with legal merit, there is a better chance of its successfully getting to court and winning, leading to a better chance that the defendant will decide to settle rather than taking the chance of losing and paying a lot more. > > In fact, if such a suit goes to the > > courtroom, the plaintiff will lose more often than not. > > And why do you think that is the case? I don't just think that is the case. I know that is the case. I could direct you to a recent New England Journal of Medicine article, among others, to point out that the rates rates of plaintiff victory when malpractice suits go to court is much less than 50%. It's more like 10-40%, depending on the state and jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the articles didn't address the settlement rate. > > The goal is to > > intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling > > to "make it go away." > > You mean like Michael Jackson? Or hundreds of other guilty parties? Bad analogy. Michael Jackson was accused of a crime and his settlement of the lawsuit by one of his alleged victims in the early 1990's was more of a payoff to prevent the child from testifying at a subsequent criminal trial. Believe it or not, except for uncommon exceptions, alpractice is not a crime. It is a civil matter for the courts to compensate those who are the victims of malpractice. Doctors are generally not thrown in jail for malpractice--unlike Michael Jackson, who recently WAS thrown in jail for allegedly molesting young boys. > Sorry, you brought it up. And easily disposed of it. (Of course, you made it easy by bringing up such a bad analogy. A better analogy would have been harder to dispose of.) > > A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most > > doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight rather quickly and are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > And this doesn't apply to the patient... who has already gone through > a trial of their own (medically, that is). I never said it wasn't. The point, however, is that trial lawyers know that many doctors tend to take on an attitude of "let's make this go away," even doctors who know they've done nothing outside the standard of care. Most doctors are out of their element in the legal system. > I assure you that I find those who file frivolous lawsuits against > doctors (or any other person or entity) the scum of the earth, and > they should be horse whipped, keel hauled or ??? > > We both may agree on that. True enough. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" Hello again "orac": Hope you dont mind that I have 'scrubbed' much of the previous posting(s)... not that we settled anything or agreed on everything (for sure), but I hoped it would be more productive to focus on just a cpl of the points you or I have brought to the discussion thus far: You said: > > The goal is to > > intimidate the doctor or his malpractice insurance company into settling > > to "make it go away." I said: > You mean like Michael Jackson? Or hundreds of other guilty parties? You said: Bad analogy. Michael Jackson was accused of a crime and his settlement of the lawsuit by one of his alleged victims in the early 1990's was more of a payoff to prevent the child from testifying at a subsequent criminal trial. Believe it or not, except for uncommon exceptions, alpractice is not a crime. It is a civil matter for the courts to compensate those who are the victims of malpractice. Doctors are generally not thrown in jail for malpractice--unlike Michael Jackson, who recently WAS thrown in jail for allegedly molesting young boys. I now add: That changes the discussion entirely, to suddenly bring up the difference(s) in civil vs criminal prosecution. I do not believe this difference nullifies the comparison at all. I said: > Sorry, you brought it up. You said: And easily disposed of it. (Of course, you made it easy by bringing up such a bad analogy. A better analogy would have been harder to dispose of.) I now add: I disagree and think it was a perfect analogy. You said: > > A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most > > doctors. Most of them lose their will to fight rather quickly and are > > more than willing to settle, rather than face the hostile questioning > > that will happen at a deposition or, worse yet, to face the nasty > > crossexamination they are likely to face in court. I said: > And this doesn't apply to the patient... who has already gone through > a trial of their own (medically, that is). You said: I never said it wasn't. The point, however, is that trial lawyers know that many doctors tend to take on an attitude of "let's make this go away," even doctors who know they've done nothing outside the standard of care. Most doctors are out of their element in the legal system. I now add: One response to this last claim is that many of the doctors who choose this route could be thought of as cowards. This is admittedly strong language, but used to make the point. Will ~~~ I think you have been in this discussion before. : ) [Snip] > You said: > > > A malpractice suit is a traumatic event to most [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > this route could be thought of as cowards. This is admittedly strong > language, but used to make the point. You might think differently if you or someone you knew were subject to such a frivolous suit. You might also think differently if you knew how much time and effort such suits can take away from what is really important to a good doctor: taking care of patients. SignatureOrac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." | |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you | inconvenience me with questions?" I have actually been on BOTH sides of the table, so my thoughts are more 'true' or closer to reality than most. As a defendant: Because of two totally fraudulent and specious lawsuits (details on request), I was thrown into bankruptcy. They were filed in two other states by former angry, dishonest associates who 'knew where the deep pocket was'. With tricky lawyers (who sent notices to old addresses) they gained jurisdiction and obtained default judgments that the judges (must have been acquaintances of their lawyers) would not overturn. It was a horrible six long years. As a plaintiff: A med mal suit filed in 1998 in Jacksonville, FL was thrown out of court the day before the trial was to begin after two years, over $200,00 spent on expert witnesses, dopositions, legal fees, etc. My lawyer (supposedly) disappeared (with all my records) after the dismissal and cannot be located... even by the Florida Bar. The judge turned out to be the next door neighbor of the president of the medical facility, a long time patient of the facility and a friend of many of their doctors and administrators/staff. So, yes indeed, I have been on both sides and - hopefully - I am sensitive to issue on either side of the issue. Take care. Will > [Snip] > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > much time and effort such suits can take away from what is really > important to a good doctor: taking care of patients. >As a plaintiff: > A med mal suit filed in 1998 in Jacksonville, FL was thrown out of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >So, yes indeed, I have been on both sides and - hopefully - I am >sensitive to issue on either side of the issue. You seem to be editing reality here. You actually posted the transcript of your hearing to this newsgroup, so anyone who wants to can go search for it in archives. IIRC, after causing the defendant a great deal of trouble and expense, having several injunctions placed on you for harrassing clerical workers at the court facilities, and refusing to cooperate rationally with your lawyers, you finally had your day in court. You showed up and before the process had really started, you told the judge that you were just going to walk out of it all, and did so. Then followed some very interesting discussion in the transcript, where your lawyer pleaded with the judge for ethical guidance on what he should do about the situation, in which he described his efforts to work with you and represent you to the best of his ability. It was a difficult situation for everyone, since you claimed to have dismissed your lawyer, and had not been declared mentally incompetent. You've told the group that you suffer from bipolar disorder, and your pattern of posting, and the stories of great ups and downs in your life bears this out. You show up for a few months with a crusade, e.g. agains the Mayo Clinic for allegedly destroying the health of yourself and countless thousands of others by infecting you with HPV during a colonoscopy. You start a crusade for better standards of sterilization for the relevant equipment, which would be a reasonable and useful project, but you prosecute it by railing at evil, greedy, careless doctors. You attempt to support your credibility by telling us about the lucrative consulting business you had before contracting the dreaded HPV genital warts virus. Eventually you disappear from sci.med. A year or so later, you reappear on a similar crusade against evil, greedy, careless gynecologists who infect women with HPV from improperly sterilized specula. At this point you are living in your mother's basement, hoping to recoup your wealth by writing a book about this horrible conspiracy. Eventually you disappear again. Bipolar disorder is a terrible disease. It has ruined many lives. You are letting it ruin yours. You have only one life. Get treatment, regain control and make a good life for yourself again. Bea - CSLab: Still at it, huh? Thought you guys had run out of funding. Exactly what reality did you find edited? Was it the fact that Judge Karen K. Cole was the neighbor ot the president of Mayo Clinic Jacksonville? Or was it the fact that she was a long time patient of Mayo Clinic Jacksonville? Or was it the fact thea she... well, let's answer these first. OK? Oh yes: And if you can locate Mr. Jose Omar Seda, my supposed attorney, who conveniently disappeared after the trial - not to be found by the Florida Bar or anyone else - you might give me a shout... or just tell him to send my my records. You grossly misrepresent the facts... Only one example of many: You claim that I "...told the judge that (I was) just going to walk out of it all, and did so." That is simply a total, unadulterated, prevarication. Denial of truth, the telling of half truths and 'meanspiritedness' by a small percentage of individuals is exactly what gives some professions a bad name. Don't you think? Will (You sure seem to know an awful lot about me, "xxxx...". Do you do this as a hobby or is it your job? Regardless, I certainly seem to have captivated your attention. But stick around for the next chapter.) > >As a plaintiff: > > A med mal suit filed in 1998 in Jacksonville, FL was thrown out of [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > are letting it ruin yours. You have only one life. Get treatment, > regain control and make a good life for yourself again. will. while i was in here i thought i would look at the other post you had made recently. it looks like you nailed them fella. they got real quiet didnt they? i suggest that you just ignore them. by the way where can i get a copy of your book. is it on line anywhere? or is it at b and n or ??? keep it up sir. dz > Bea - CSLab: > Still at it, huh? Thought you guys had run out of funding. [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > are letting it ruin yours. You have only one life. Get treatment, > > regain control and make a good life for yourself again. > will. while i was in here i thought i would look at the other post you > had made recently. it looks like you nailed them fella. they got real [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > keep it up sir. > dz DZ: The book is not published thus far. Hopefully, before the end of this year. Will > > Bea - CSLab: > > Still at it, huh? Thought you guys had run out of funding. [quoted text clipped - 78 lines] > > > are letting it ruin yours. You have only one life. Get treatment, > > > regain control and make a good life for yourself again. try knowx.com There may be a small fee but tells a lot about the doc and if that doc has been "disciplined". Also try an Internet search on combos such as doctor malpractice and physician lawsuit. Is this for a medical specialty where every doctor has been sued (once they're experienced enough)? I don't think all cosmetic surgeons/cosmetic derms have been sued. I'd look for a doctor who fits both suggested criteria -- who has never been sued if feasible (if not who has been sued the least) as well as someone a doctor or nurse would go to themselves or recommend for a loved one. One of the biggest mistakes patients make is to sacrifice quality for closeness. Be willing to travel some for a very much better doctor. Good luck! Sherry |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.