Medical, Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch

Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch

Author	Message
Orac #1 / 7	Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch Quote: > 8. Jesica was not a wage earner, so there was NO economic harm done. Since > the law pays for economic harm, there was none so there are no damages due. Not true. {filter}agers and young {filter}s can be compensated for future wages lost from their loss of the ability to work. Quote: > (Let me add that this would apply to a retired person too....they are all > worthless in the eyes of the law except for pain and suffering). Utter bullshit, George. Retirees are not "worthless" in the eyes of the law. A retiree is just as entitled to receive compensation for medical expenses and pain and suffering as any other person harmed by malpractice. He or she is just not entitled to compensation for a loss that didn't occur (wages). Tell me, how can one lawfully be given compensation for lost wages when there are no wages to be lost? Think it through George. -- Orac \|"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." \| \|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you \| inconvenience me with questions?"
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:36:45 GMT

Kurt Ullm #2 / 7	Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch Quote: >> 8. Jesica was not a wage earner, so there was NO economic harm done. Since >> the law pays for economic harm, there was none so there are no damages due. >Not true. {filter}agers and young {filter}s can be compensated for future wages >lost from their loss of the ability to work. Depends on the state. In many (if not most) you can't get econ damages from those under 18. Don't know about NC, but given it is a more conservative state, they may not. In Indiana you can't for instance. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Politics should be limited in its scope to war, protection of property, and the occasional precautionary {filter} of a member of the ruling class." -P.J. O'Rourke ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 02:30:43 GMT

(nul #3 / 7	Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch Quote: >> 8. Jesica was not a wage earner, so there was NO economic harm done. Since >> the law pays for economic harm, there was none so there are no damages due. >Not true. {filter}agers and young {filter}s can be compensated for future wages >lost from their loss of the ability to work. Not in North Carolina without proof that Jesica was intending to support her parents, and probably not even then. Cases have been thrown out on this basis in the past. Duke knows it too. Quote: >> (Let me add that this would apply to a retired person too....they are all >> worthless in the eyes of the law except for pain and suffering). >Utter bullshit, George. Retirees are not "worthless" in the eyes of the >law. A retiree is just as entitled to receive compensation for medical >expenses and pain and suffering as any other person harmed by >malpractice. He or she is just not entitled to compensation for a loss >that didn't occur (wages). Tell me, how can one lawfully be given >compensation for lost wages when there are no wages to be lost? I notice you have deleted most of the post which shows Duke's probable intended defense against paying even a thin dime in this case. And they are also hard to deal with. Duke did at least not discriminate on the basis of national origin, which is one of its points. But an old person has no book value unless there is proven pain and suffering. And that is hard to prove. Death is not an economic loss. If pain and suffering were capped, as the AMA is pushing for, then any recovery in a case like this would be impossible in practical terms since Duke could outspend the $250,000 in five minutes. Further, in NC a physician must also be found to certify (without disovery or the medical records too) that malpractice was done. It just is not likely to happen. -- George Conklin, Durham, NC If HMOs ran the post office, the AMA (American Mail Association) would declare that getting mail was a privilege, not a right and 43 million Americans would get no mail delivery.
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 03:48:18 GMT

Orac #4 / 7	Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch Quote: > >> (Let me add that this would apply to a retired person too....they are all > >> worthless in the eyes of the law except for pain and suffering). > >Utter bullshit, George. Retirees are not "worthless" in the eyes of the > >law. A retiree is just as entitled to receive compensation for medical > >expenses and pain and suffering as any other person harmed by > >malpractice. He or she is just not entitled to compensation for a loss > >that didn't occur (wages). Tell me, how can one lawfully be given > >compensation for lost wages when there are no wages to be lost? > I notice you have deleted most of the post which shows Duke's > probable intended defense against paying even a thin dime in this > case. Because I didn't feel like commenting on it, George. I don't have to comment on everything you say, any more than you have to comment on everything I say. Indeed, I've been wasting far more time with you lately than is probably wise. Besides, you're one to complain about someone responding to only a portion of your post when you routinely do exactly the same thing, and not even in context. I've already made it plain that I think Duke University screwed up and because its hospital clearly had an inadequate system in place it probably deserves whatever it gets. What more do you want? Quote: >And they are also hard to deal with. Duke did at least > not discriminate on the basis of national origin, which is one of > its points. > But an old person has no book value unless there is proven > pain and suffering. And that is hard to prove. Why is pain and suffering any harder to prove for an old person than for a young person? Your thinking here is mushy. Quote: >Death is not an > economic loss. There are other economic losses that can be sued for. Wives routinely include damages for loss of companionship when their husbands die because of negligence. Quote: >If pain and suffering were capped, as the AMA is > pushing for, then any recovery in a case like this would be > impossible in practical terms since Duke could outspend the > $250,000 in five minutes. Further, in NC a physician must also > be found to certify (without disovery or the medical records too) > that malpractice was done. It just is not likely to happen. I notice you don't address my comment that old people are just as entitled to compensation for medical expenses and extended care. -- Orac \|"A statement of fact cannot be insolent." \| \|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you \| inconvenience me with questions?"
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:01:35 GMT

<georgeconk.. #5 / 7	Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch Quote: > > >> (Let me add that this would apply to a retired person too....they are all > > >> worthless in the eyes of the law except for pain and suffering). > > >Utter bullshit, George. Retirees are not "worthless" in the eyes of the > > >law. A retiree is just as entitled to receive compensation for medical > > >expenses and pain and suffering as any other person harmed by > > >malpractice. He or she is just not entitled to compensation for a loss > > >that didn't occur (wages). Tell me, how can one lawfully be given > > >compensation for lost wages when there are no wages to be lost? > > I notice you have deleted most of the post which shows Duke's > > probable intended defense against paying even a thin dime in this > > case. > Because I didn't feel like commenting on it, George. I don't have to > comment on everything you say, any more than you have to comment on > everything I say. Indeed, I've been wasting far more time with you > lately than is probably wise. Besides, you're one to complain about > someone responding to only a portion of your post when you routinely do > exactly the same thing, and not even in context. I've already made it > plain that I think Duke University screwed up and because its hospital > clearly had an inadequate system in place it probably deserves whatever > it gets. What more do you want? Some concept that all medical errors are not 'personal' and that systems are horribly neglected in the medical business to the detriment of the patient, nation and the economy. Quote: > >And they are also hard to deal with. Duke did at least > > not discriminate on the basis of national origin, which is one of > > its points. > > But an old person has no book value unless there is proven > > pain and suffering. And that is hard to prove. > Why is pain and suffering any harder to prove for an old person than for > a young person? Your thinking here is mushy. Pain and suffering are what will be capped. With no economic loss, capping pain and suffering will make an old person (or Jesica) without remedy. Quote: > >Death is not an > > economic loss. > There are other economic losses that can be sued for. Wives routinely > include damages for loss of companionship when their husbands die > because of negligence. This is not an economic loss. It would be under pain and suffering. Quote: > >If pain and suffering were capped, as the AMA is > > pushing for, then any recovery in a case like this would be > > impossible in practical terms since Duke could outspend the > > $250,000 in five minutes. Further, in NC a physician must also > > be found to certify (without disovery or the medical records too) > > that malpractice was done. It just is not likely to happen. > I notice you don't address my comment that old people are just as > entitled to compensation for medical expenses and extended care. > -- We were talking about death. If a person's income would pay for extended care, then there is no economic loss.
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:55:39 GMT

amp_spamfr #6 / 7	Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch Quote: > >> 8. Jesica was not a wage earner, so there was NO economic harm done. Since > >> the law pays for economic harm, there was none so there are no damages due. > >Not true. {filter}agers and young {filter}s can be compensated for future wages > >lost from their loss of the ability to work. > Depends on the state. In many (if not most) you can't get econ damages > from those under 18. Don't know about NC, but given it is a more conservative > state, they may not. In Indiana you can't for instance. No, Indiana does not preclude collecting lost future wages in medical malpractice. The law is mute on the point of actual calculation of the damages and does cap the overall award. Future wages are compensable under medical malpractice in every state in the US - and it is irrespective of the age of the plaintiff. In addition, you should be aware that the societal value in terms of human capital is a well established economic measure and as such even elderly, unemployed, full time homemakers, and children have a calculable and defensible direct economic loss due to death or injury. For fun and grins, you ought to look at what the UK, Australia, Netherlands, and even some insurers in the US do when they calculate the direct and indirect costs of treatment. Economic loses (such as wages) fall under the rubric of indirect costs (these are economists, not accountants so don't argue semantics with me) and are reported, albeit separately, and considered in reimbur{filter}t decisions.
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:20:20 GMT

Kurt Ullm #7 / 7	Duke's Legal Defense on Jesica's Mismatch Quote: >No, Indiana does not preclude collecting lost future wages in medical >malpractice. The law is mute on the point of actual calculation of >the damages and does cap the overall award. Okay. I didn't know that the malpractice statute was different from the rest of civil law. There is currently another brohaha brewing in the IN legislature about kids being essentially unprotected because you can't sue for lost wages, etc. I guess that is what happens when one assumes (g). ------------------------------------------------- "(O)ne knows that should an airliner crash tomorrow near a Trappist monastery not even the brother's celebrated vows of silence would protect them from the bombardment of inane and unanswerable questions which is by now an accepted convention of TV's crisis-oriented news coverage." -- Michael Arlen "The View From Highway 1" (C) 1975.
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:51:21 GMT

Page 1 of 1

[ 7 post ]