Immigration for the Elite

Or maybe you could try to do a better job of comprehending what I wrote.

Want to point out where I said anything about the McDonald's case?

Like I said, it looks like you're a little guilty of projecting and believing whatever you want to believe... Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Good thing the instructions are on the heel of each pair of boots, in your case anyhow. I'm just enjoying you and some others who are always so ready to forcefully and boisterously leap headlong at all times to the defense of those poor, lil' ol' big businesses who have proven over and over that they are merely harmless entities operating for the greater good, pure as the driven snow.

I'd also have to offer that any person/corporation, especially in a SMALLer business role, who has spent more than one instance in front of a court as a plaintiff may be a little slow on the uptake - regardless of income level.

Good thing the instructions are on the heel of each pair of boots, in your case anyhow. I'm just enjoying you and some others who are always so ready to forcefully and boisterously leap headlong at all times to the defense of those poor, lil' ol' big businesses who have proven over and over that they are merely harmless entities operating for the greater good, pure as the driven snow.

I'd also have to offer that any person/corporation, especially in a SMALLer business role, who has spent more than one instance in front of a court as a plaintiff may be a little slow on the uptake - regardless of income level. Originally Posted by Randy4Candy

Geez...

Speaking of people who may be a little slow on the uptake...are you totally incapable of understanding anything I've said? I have little interest in discussing issues with those who continually make stupid, nonsensical statements and refuse to even make an effort to comprehend what others have written.

Why don't you just go have a pleasant conversation with yourself?

Geez...

Speaking of people who may be a little slow on the uptake...are you totally incapable of understanding anything I've said? I have little interest in discussing issues with those who continually make stupid, nonsensical statements and refuse to even make an effort to comprehend what others have written.

Why don't you just go have a pleasant conversation with yourself? Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Hey.. I am not allowed to make such statements either. We should practice our being polite skills together , what do you think? But i understand where you come from, you just should formulate it more polite. I try that too. Same as you i have also no interest in discussions with people who don`t even try to lead a discussion. I have not read what the preposter has written so i can`t make my statement about him i am generally speaking.

sorry for asking but can anyone explain that "tort" stuff to me? What is that? I don`t know and without that knowledge i can`t follow this interesting discussion ....

Hey.. I am not allowed to make such statements either. We should practice our being polite skills together , what do you think? But i understand where you come from, you just should formulate it more polite. I try that too. Same as you i have also no interest in discussions with people who don`t even try to lead a discussion. I have not read what the preposter has written so i can`t make my statement about him i am generally speaking. Originally Posted by ninasastri

Nina, I'm all for having friendly discussions, but do tend to lose patience with people who make obnoxious statements. Please take a look at the stuff this clown posted, starting with post #31. Then maybe you'll see what I mean!

Additionally, the guy didn't even bother to actually pay attention to what I posted, instead choosing to completely mischaracterize my statements. If he can manage to craft an intelligent, reasoned argument, instead of tossing out silly statements and non sequiturs peppered with juvenile barbs, then I'd be willing to debate issues with him, but not otherwise.

sorry for asking but can anyone explain that "tort" stuff to me? What is that? I don`t know and without that knowledge i can`t follow this interesting discussion .... Originally Posted by ninasastri

A tort is simply an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured party can sue the perpetrator for damages.

sorry for asking but can anyone explain that "tort" stuff to me? What is that? I don`t know and without that knowledge i can`t follow this interesting discussion .... Originally Posted by ninasastri

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort

The Internet is a neat tool. You can find out almost anything.

Nina, I'm all for having friendly discussions, but do tend to lose patience with people who make obnoxious statements. Please take a look at the stuff this clown posted, starting with post #31. Then maybe you'll see what I mean!

Additionally, the guy didn't even bother to actually pay attention to what I posted, instead choosing to completely mischaracterize my statements. If he can manage to craft an intelligent, reasoned argument, instead of tossing out silly statements and non sequiturs peppered with juvenile barbs, then I'd be willing to debate issues with him, but not otherwise.



A tort is simply an act that injures someone in some way, and for which the injured party can sue the perpetrator for damages. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

Oh thanks for the explanation of tort.

to the "clown" thing: I have had myself a discussion with such a "clown". i feel deep inside with you. You had me at clown and "obnoxious". Seriously. I feel you. But i got a warning for that and i think its better to be smarter and play the game differently. Although i had the same reaction like you, but it was laid out as "chasticing members" - so i just said heads up with the swear words. Although i have no problem with that :-) You might want to try to avoid words like "clown" or such things. :-) But i know how you feel. Been there done that.

I heard reports today that now a bunch of ticket holders for the Superbowl are suing the NFL of the quality of their seats...either they were obstructed or they were delayed getting access to their seats...etc. etc. etc.

Well earlier in the week the NFL announced a pretty generous offer to a different group of ticket holders that were unable to sit in their seats at all. Avoid bad PR, wrong a right, etc. Pretty stand-up move.

As background, promoters of sporting events, concerts, other special events, etc. are very reluctant to offer reimbursement for much of anything if the event actually takes place. It creates a slippery slope. If everybody that had an experience that didn't have a "meets/exceeds expectations" experience everyone would want compensation...

So now we have an organization trying to make things right (the NFL) and now the ambulance chasers smell blood and are recruiting anyone that felt wronged to sue the deep pockets of the NFL....

....next time you complain about ticket prices think about this....

I forgot about that one. Something like the "English Rule" would be a positive step.

Of course, the American Association for Justice (a misnomer if there ever was one) might have a little bit of a problem with these ideas. Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight

The other thing that might help is if we actually started seeing lawyers be sued for legal malpractice, the pain and suffering that they cause, and being nailed for unethical conduct. Right now, there is this attitude that all's fair in love, war, and lawsuits. As along as you win, it is all good.

I am in a case right now where a medical expert witness supposedly wrote two opinions, one in 2008 and 2010. The expert was then deposed and stated he only wrote one opinion in 2008. The plaintiff's attorney calls a recess and despite the deposition having only gone for twenty minutes, the expert and the attorney took a 45 minute break.

It is obvious to everyone involved that the lawyer wrote a medical opinion and signed the doctor's name to it. During the recess, one attorney looks at the two opinions and sees that the signature is exactly the same. The lawyers then talk among themselves and one says, "Yeah, lawyer so and so lectured at a medical malpractice conference and he said that you don't need to get a doctor for a medical opinion. You can just write your own and pay some doctor to sign off on it."

One lawyer senses how pissed off I am and warns me not to do anything. She says, "Woody, this medical expert is an idiot. We want him to be the plaintiff's expert."

The plaintiff's attorney and medical expert finally return. Instead of saying he wrote only one medical opinion, the medical expert says he doesn't remember signing the second one. He then refuses to answer any other questions about the second opinion under the advice of the plaintiff's attorney.

So for all these lawyers saying that if not for them the little guy would get abused, I call bullshit. Every lawyer involved should have stood up and turned this plaintiff's attorney into the bar right then and there for putting forward a completely fraudulent medical opinion. By not doing so, they are basically approving of completely unethical behavior.

Can you imagine the precedent this sets? If some corporation is contaminating your drinking water with lead, a corporate attorney can just write an opinion, say there is no lead in the water, and sign an expert's name to it without fear of reprisal. And you know what their defense would be? These lawyers would state that they were just acting in the best interests of their client.

Falsifying the opinion of experts is now business as usual in our legal system.

So for all these lawyers saying that if not for them the little guy would get abused, I call bullshit. Every lawyer involved should have stood up and turned this plaintiff's attorney into the bar right then and there for putting forward a completely fraudulent medical opinion. By not doing so, they are basically approving of completely unethical behavior.

Can you imagine the precedent this sets? If some corporation is contaminating your drinking water with lead, a corporate attorney can just write an opinion, say there is no lead in the water, and sign an expert's name to it without fear of reprisal. And you know what their defense would be? These lawyers would state that they were just acting in the best interests of their client.

Falsifying the opinion of experts is now business as usual in our legal system. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

You're right. In this instance, if what you said is true, then yes, all the attorneys should have "outed" the Plaintiff's attorney.

My problem with your post is that you take this one anecdote and expand it to all attorneys, accusing them of unethical and illegal conduct. That's just plain wrong. And, in doing so, you have been extremely unfair and engaged in slander of a whole group of people based the the bad conduct of one.

What if I accused all doctors of selling out because there are doctors who specialize in working for defense in workers' comp cases, and no matter how injured a worker is, they always "find" zero impairment from the injury? Sold out.

Or, what if I accused all doctors of malpractice because of the one that amputated the left arm, when he was supposed to amputate the right arm? Gross negligence.

My point is: you can prove anything with anecdotal evidence. You need to be more careful with broad sweeping statements, especially those that accuse whole groups of people of engaging unethical or illegal conduct.

My problem with your post is that you take this one anecdote and expand it to all attorneys, accusing them of unethical and illegal conduct. That's just plain wrong. And, in doing so, you have been extremely unfair and engaged in slander of a whole group of people based the the bad conduct of one.

What if I accused all doctors of selling out because there are doctors who specialize in working for defense in workers' comp cases, and no matter how injured a worker is, they always "find" zero impairment from the injury? Sold out.

Or, what if I accused all doctors of malpractice because of the one that amputated the left arm, when he was supposed to amputate the right arm? Gross negligence.

My point is: you can prove anything with anecdotal evidence. You need to be more careful with broad sweeping statements, especially those that accuse whole groups of people of engaging unethical or illegal conduct. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

i agree.

What if I accused all doctors of selling out because there are doctors who specialize in working for defense in workers' comp cases, and no matter how injured a worker is, they always "find" zero impairment from the injury? Sold out. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

It is not anecdotal if a doctor says that he went to a conference and heard a lecturer dispensing that advice. Do you know that to be true?

The case against me was filed beyond the statue of limitations. The clinical guidelines were followed to the letter so much so that the plaintiff's expert had to say, "desperate times call for desperate measures." A therapy that was clearly contraindicated in this patient was deemed by the expert as the standard of care in his written opinion. Yet when the expert was deposed and asked if that therapy should have been employed, he said it should NOT have been. His line was and I quote "I was just throwing stuff out there."

The case involves a noncompliant Medicaid patient whose family is seeking $250,000 from me and a bunch of other doctors, and that amount of money has likely already been spent on the defense already.

The definition of medical malpractice is "professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which care provided deviates from accepted standards of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient."

That sounds reasonable, but I think many people who paid attention to the health care debate were a little surprised then to hear Obama come out and offer malpractice reform at first. He was initially willing to concede that doctors who followed clinical guidelines could not be sued. I think most people who actually read this had a what the fuck moment and asked themselves, "doctors who follow clinical guidelines are being sued. For what?"

But med mal lawyers had a fit at even this concession so no malpractice reform was enacted with Obamacare.

So the point is not anecdotal. Lawyers seek to win at all costs even if doctors follow clinical guidelines and/or adhere to the standard of care. If lawyers don't like the clinical guidelines or standards of care, they just pay off some expert to make up new ones or worse yet, invent new ones on their own and sign a doctor's name to it.

Instead of taking on my compliant head on, you deflect the issue and accuse me of being unfair. Let me then ask you this directly: If a lawyer falsifies a medical opinion, should he or she lose their law license? And more importantly, will he or she?

My answer to the second question is not just no, but hell no, and that makes the point. If a lawyer does not lose his or license for falsifying medical opinions, why would he or she not continue that practice? Show me a lawyer who has lost his or her license for engaging in this practice.

First of all, you're engaging in misdirection yourself. I said in my first sentence:

You're right. In this instance, if what you said is true, then yes, all the attorneys should have "outed" the Plaintiff's attorney.

And since you ask, I'll say up front here, that whether or not an attorney should be disbarred depends upon provable evidence, not mere allegations. I'm not saying you're incorrect in your assessments, but you can understand my hesitancy to take it at face value since you so obviously feel everything about the case was unjustified. I have been around long enough to know that there are two sides to every story.

More comments follow:

It is not anecdotal if a doctor says that he went to a conference and heard a lecturer dispensing that advice. Do you know that to be true? You obviously need to look up the definition of "anecdotal." Here is the one I meant:

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

The whole point of my post is that it is extremely unfair and wrong to take one incident, no matter how true, and use it to smear a whole group of people or a whole profession.

The case against me was filed beyond the statue of limitations. I find this hard to believe since that alone would have gotten the case kicked out on motions. The clinical guidelines were followed to the letter so much so that the plaintiff's expert had to say, "desperate times call for desperate measures." A therapy that was clearly contraindicated in this patient was deemed by the expert as the standard of care in his written opinion. Yet when the expert was deposed and asked if that therapy should have been employed, he said it should NOT have been. His line was and I quote "I was just throwing stuff out there." I don't argue experts' opinions b/c I'm not an expert. It's between the experts. And for every expert opinion out there, you can find an opposing one. Med mal cases have become a battle of the experts, and I feel sorry for you if the jury chooses not to believe you and to believe the Plaintiff's expert.

The case involves a noncompliant Medicaid patient whose family is seeking $250,000 from me and a bunch of other doctors, and that amount of money has likely already been spent on the defense already. Here, you are really being disingenuous. The only people on the hook in this lawsuit is your insurance company.

The definition of medical malpractice is "professional negligence by act or omission by a health care provider in which care provided deviates from accepted standards of practice in the medical community and causes injury or death to the patient."

That sounds reasonable, but I think many people who paid attention to the health care debate were a little surprised then to hear Obama come out and offer malpractice reform at first. He was initially willing to concede that doctors who followed clinical guidelines could not be sued. I think most people who actually read this had a what the fuck moment and asked themselves, "doctors who follow clinical guidelines are being sued. For what?" Just because you follow clinical guidelines doesn't mean you can't do it in a negligent manner. Take my wrong arm amputation example. Let's assume the doc followed clinical guidelines in the amputation. Are you telling me that he couldn't be sued b/c he lopped off the wrong arm???

But med mal lawyers had a fit at even this concession so no malpractice reform was enacted with Obamacare. We'd argue whether it was needed. Most docs I've met don't believe that any medical act rises to the level of malpractice, and that no patient should be able to sue for anything. They want to sit back, rake in their millions, and be lawsuit bulletproof. Well, with that kind of status comes a lot of responsibility. But it seems most docs want all the gravy and none of the guff. We all want that to a certain extent. But that's not the way the world works.

So the point is not anecdotal. Yes, it was. You need to read the definition of "anecdotal" I cited above. Lawyers seek to win at all costs even if doctors follow clinical guidelines and/or adhere to the standard of care. If lawyers don't like the clinical guidelines or standards of care, they just pay off some expert to make up new ones or worse yet, invent new ones on their own and sign a doctor's name to it. Defense experts are paid just like plaintiffs' experts, so your "paid off" doesn't make much sense. You feel like the plaintiff's expert was a sell out because he agreed with the plaintiff. It may have been true in your case. But it is certainly not true in all cases. Especially the cases in which juries agree with the plaintiff. Believe me, most docs have silk stocking defense firms that are experts themselves at keeping juries from finding against the docs. Between the motion docket, the experts they employ, and the discovery process, it's amazing that as many plaintiffs make it to court as they do.

Instead of taking on my compliant head on, you deflect the issue and accuse me of being unfair. No. I took it head on and answered it in the first sentence. I just had a different take on your example which is: even if your one example is true, it is no reason to paint a whole group of people with the slanderous language you did. There are certainly honorable men (assuming, what you said is true) in the plaintiffs' bar, but you refuse to acknowledge that. That was what I objected to. I did not deflect anything. I object to your wholesale characterization of lawyers. Let me then ask you this directly: If a lawyer falsifies a medical opinion, should he or she lose their law license? And more importantly, will he or she? Like I said above, it depends. It depends on a lot of factors. Certainly, if a lawyer is convicted of a crime of moral turpitude (like Clinton) he'll lose his license to practice law. Lesser offenses involve lesser discipline (suspension, probation). Let's take docs for a change. If a doc follows the guidelines, say in doing a colonostomy, yet nicks the bowels infecting the patient, who then dies, is the doc free from any professional discipline? After all (and I realize we disagree on this), he killed a person through negligence. If there is no professional discipline, does the tort system act as the same kind of thing?

My answer to the second question is not just no, but hell no, and that makes the point. If a lawyer does not lose his or license for falsifying medical opinions, why would he or she not continue that practice? Show me a lawyer who has lost his or her license for engaging in this practice. All you gotta do is call the Texas Bar Association or open the Texas Bar Journal. Discipline is reported. Attorneys are disbarred. Ask to be sent the list for the last year. They have an 800 number.

One more thing: I think you expected the plaintiff's attorney to roll over and play dead. Well, when an attorney takes a case, s/he is obligated to prosecute the client's case zealously. It's an ethical requirement. If s/he doesn't, s/he can be subject to discipline. And what about docs. They're oath is "first, do no harm."

So, tell me, what harm did you do that got you hauled into court? Certainly the plaintiffs got past the motion docket where most frivolous cases are thrown out. So, no matter how much you tout the wrongfulness of this case, it doesn't ring true. Originally Posted by woodyboyd

The case involves a noncompliant Medicaid patient whose family is seeking $250,000 from me and a bunch of other doctors, and that amount of money has likely already been spent on the defense already. Here, you are really being disingenuous. The only people on the hook in this lawsuit is your insurance company. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

This is total and utter bullshit! Insurance companies don't pay claims -- their policyholders do through the premiums they pay. That means that malpractice payments are made by the doctors that have to purchase the coverage -- and ultimately by the consumers buying the doctors services. Oh wait, that's all just other insurance companies and the government -- so it must be free too.

No wonder our medical system is so fucked up -- fuzzy headed economic thinking like this.

Deleted . . . .

Not worth the breath needed to be expended on the argument I almost started.

Cheers,
Mazo.