I am being sued. Because I was there.

[Liberal]

KarlGauss

Incredible. If you are absolved, do you have recourse to sue the system for its harassment?

[minty_green]

You are not my client, KarlGauss. But I would never want a client of mine to be blabbing about their case on a public message board. Just a thought, is all.

[Liberal]

Yep. When you’re being screwed for the first time, it’s best for everyone if you’re gagged.

[Jackmannii]

The case as KarlGauss presents it gives no indication whatsoever that he has any connection at all to the surgery that is at issue. He and probably other innocents are being dragged in because it’s convenient for the lawyer(s), who don’t have to bother with exercising minimal discretion/brain power to figure out who’s likely to be at fault.

I’ve heard this justification about naming everybody remotely connected to someone’s medical care, in order to “determine the facts of the case”. This bullshit causes stress, trauma and expense to a lot of people who don’t deserve it.

After being dropped from such a suit I’d be highly minded to countersue.

[minty_green]

Perhaps I should explain somewhat further, Lib? By the mere fact that Karl has memorialized the facts of the incident, this thread is now subject to discovery by the opposing side. I virtually guarantee that the plaintiff’s attorneys will promulgate a request for production that requires its to be turned over by Karl. If Karl doesn’t turn it over, he may be subject to sanctions by the court for failing to comply with the discovery process. And of course, that’s not even considering what the other side may be able to do with the OP as evidence.

Wave to the plaintiff’s attorneys, everyone! They will be reading this soon enough.

[matt_mcl]

Libertarian: Isn’t that kind of kinky?

[matt_mcl]

And speaking of kinky…

Wave to the plaintiff’s attorneys, everyone! They will be reading this soon enough.

Why do I suddenly have this urge to tell everyone about my fantasy involving Potter, a gallon jug of Astroglide, a bunch of silk scarves, maple syrup, and several muscular Catalans?

[Shodan]

If you do, I’m suing.

Regards,
Shodan

[jjimm]

*Originally posted by minty green *
**Perhaps I should explain somewhat further, Lib? By the mere fact that Karl has memorialized the facts of the incident, this thread is now subject to discovery by the opposing side. I virtually guarantee that the plaintiff’s attorneys will promulgate a request for production that requires its to be turned over by Karl. If Karl doesn’t turn it over, he may be subject to sanctions by the court for failing to comply with the discovery process. And of course, that’s not even considering what the other side may be able to do with the OP as evidence. **

What if KarlGauss is a pseudonym?

[jjimm]

Furthermore, what harm can his version of events do to the case (if they’re the facts)?

[jesuslynch]

*Originally posted by Lynn Bodoni *
**This is so ridiculous. I REALLY think that there should be fines and penalties slapped onto both the lawyers and the plaintiffs who file these blanket suits.

Well, that or I should be entitled to just shoot everyone who’s an idjit. But as TubaDiva says, how would I know when to STOP? **

When Cousin Vinnie says, “That’s enough?”

[Jonathan_Chance]

What color scarves? It makes all the difference.

[Robb]

Wave to the plaintiff’s attorneys, everyone! They will be reading this soon enough.

Thanks.

Now, if y’all will kindly form a line starting at the left, we’ll commence to suin’.

[Robb]

jjimm, it doesn’t matter that KarlGauss is a pseudonym to us. What matters is that the person who posts as KarlGauss will be under an obligation to answer discovery. It is pretty standard to ask for any written accounts regarding the facts. He now has at least one written account. It may or may not hurt him. That will be determined as to whether anything he wrote is inconsistent with other statements of his.

[jjimm]

But only if the plaintiff’s counsel can link him to his pseudonym, surely.

[Ferret_Herder]

*Originally posted by deborak *
I’m hoping it’s your choice, considering that if the insurance company decides that it’s easier and cheaper to just settle, that it will be a permanent black mark on your name. My understanding is that doctors can’t have too many of those black marks before they lose their insurance and thus potentially their right to practice medicine.

It’s already a permanent black mark for KarlGauss in some respects. I worked in a pediatric specialty office before my current job, and one of my tasks was to fill out papers for our physicians when they applied for privileges at other hospitals. This happened fairly often; our few doctors saw patients at 8 other clinics, and all of these sites required you to request privileges first.

Guess what one of the questions was, on each and every one of those long applications I had to help them fill out? Something to the effect of, “Have you ever had a malpractice suit filed against you?” Not, “Have you ever lost a malpractice suit filed against you?”, or even anything about settling one. Just having a suit filed against you means that you have to check off as “Yes” one of the ‘Bad List Questions’, and fill out an additional page or two describing what/when/who/how and so forth. None of the doctors I worked for ever had, but they’d seen colleagues get similarly roped into “sue 'em all and let the courts sort 'em out” cases, and they worried.

[World_Eater]

Damn reading this thread and hearing some of these stories makes my blood boil.

[zev_steinhardt]

But so what? What Karl has posted here is what he would have said in a courtroom anyway, correct? What could he possibly have said here that would expose him to more liability than he was already exposed to by his 60-second contact with the patient?

Zev Steinhardt

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by jjimm *
But only if the plaintiff’s counsel can link him to his pseudonym, surely.

No. The real-life person behind KarlGauss will be obligated, upon the request of the opposing party, to provide all documents regarding the facts of the case. The plaintiff doesn’t have to find this thread; Karl will be legally obligated to identify and produce it to the plaintiffs. Really. I’m not making this up.

[minty_green]

*Originally posted by zev_steinhardt *
What could he possibly have said here that would expose him to more liability than he was already exposed to by his 60-second contact with the patient?

I dunno. Karl’s free to do whatever he wants. I am not his attorney, and he is not my client. On the other hand, why do anything that might give the opposing party evidentiary ammunition?

Discretion > Valor.

And with that said, I think I’m going to walk away from this thread. Please pardon me if I decline to respond to further inquiries.