ColtStone wrote: I\'m not quite sure what you mean by this statement. Though, you must bear in mind that malpractice insurance is a lot different, because in such cases, the doctor really is completely at fault.
What a load of crap. The doctors are completely at fault? After reading some of the above rubbish I\'m convinced that KAKUMO is either a lawyer or was member of the O.J. jury. It\'s vermin lawyers and idiot juries that have decimated the medical profession, manufacturing, consumer goods (count the warning pages in your speed light manual), banking, farming, etc., etc., etc.
What I meant is that the plaintiff in such cases had little to nothing to do with the harm that they claim. That is to say, they entrusted their care in a doctor, and the plaintiff believed that the doctor did not care for them appropriately. In most cases (I cannot account for outliers), it\'s not a matter of who is at fault, because we know that the doctor performed some sort of procedure or took some action. Rather, the argument is whether or not the doctor\'s procedure or action was, in fact, harmful.
If you truly feel distraught about lawyers and how you feel they\'re the downfall of society, might I suggest that you take this up with your congressman? Tort reform is still a big issue after the infamous McDonald\'s coffee lawsuit. Complaining on forums isn\'t going to get anywhere or do anything for you.
In the end, though, you already have your conclusions and assumptions about me (and can\'t seem to spell my screen name correctly).
ColtStone wrote:
Here\'s a fine example of those \"hero\" lawyers going after \"the doctor completely at fault:\"
What exactly do you take umbrage about in this matter?
Grognard wrote:
Also, if I read your post correctly, if you sue a Dr. for malpractice=they are guilty, pay me the big bucks?
No, you didn\'t read my post correctly.
Nov 20, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Previous versions of kakomu's message #7797658 « Railroad Tracks and Photography »
