$10.7 million for a 2 hour wait for a brain scan

[winnar111]

Text

NEW YORK - A jury has awarded nearly $11 million to a woman who became partially paralyzed after waiting two hours for a hospital brain scan.

Jurors found New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens was negligent in caring for Candida Diego after she fractured her skull in a fall in September 2004.

A spokeswoman says the hospital doesn't believe it is liable for the 71-year-old's condition and is appealing the Oct. 3 decision awarding her $10.7 million.

Court documents say Diego was cleared for a brain scan two hours before she got one. The test was intended to check for bleeding.

Court papers say Diego lapsed into a coma in the emergency room less than an hour after the scan. She now has no movement in her left side and uses a wheelchair.



So that's healthcare for about 11000 kids for a year. 2 hours is considered a short delay when dealing with issues like heart attacks; wonder how much more of this will happen with Obamacare.

Exxon mobil doesn't even make $5 million an hour.

-------------------------------------
Is your thread intent on Obama or the article about the health care the lady received.

Trying to tie the two together (in this fashion) is pure trolling and is what caused the lock.

The thread can be recreated if the references to Obama are removed and kept out
Quality of health care is acceptable within the thread, not a discussion on political platforms

Senior Anandtech Moderator
Common Courtesy

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Text

NEW YORK - A jury has awarded nearly $11 million to a woman who became partially paralyzed after waiting two hours for a hospital brain scan.

Jurors found New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens was negligent in caring for Candida Diego after she fractured her skull in a fall in September 2004.

A spokeswoman says the hospital doesn't believe it is liable for the 71-year-old's condition and is appealing the Oct. 3 decision awarding her $10.7 million.

Court documents say Diego was cleared for a brain scan two hours before she got one. The test was intended to check for bleeding.

Court papers say Diego lapsed into a coma in the emergency room less than an hour after the scan. She now has no movement in her left side and uses a wheelchair.



So that's healthcare for about 11000 kids for a year. 2 hours is considered a short delay when dealing with issues like heart attacks; wonder how much more of this will happen with Obamacare.

Without going to Obama's website or using google, can you tell me what "Obamacare" is?

 

[StageLeft]

Pretty good job linking a bit lawsuit to Obama's plans, I am impressed.

 

[Juddog]

So what does this have to do with Obama again? Oh yeah - nothing. Keep reaching for those non-issues winnar111.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The "award" is a bit silly IMO but it does strike right to the heart of the "health care" debate. People want the best care they can afford and in this case it supposedly cost this lady movement. One has to wonder how a more "socialized" healthcare system would react to this same scenario.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Juddog
So what does this have to do with Obama again? Oh yeah - nothing. Keep reaching for those non-issues winnar111.

Which party has been the one constantly opposing tort reform and favoring this type of behavior?

Quite curious how the so called health care 'reformer' doesn't include reform of the biggest problem of health care.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Juddog
So what does this have to do with Obama again? Oh yeah - nothing. Keep reaching for those non-issues winnar111.

Which party has been the one constantly opposing tort reform and favoring this type of behavior?

Has anybody really looked at the amount of money the trial lawyers of america make? I believe in 07 there was about 260 billion dollars in settlements within our court system. That makes big oil look pretty tame. Who do they donate to more? Tort reform would be nice for some of our industries. Specifically healthcare. While I can agree some of it is blown out of proportion. It is very apparent the liability insurance is astronomical because of cases like the above.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111
Which party has been the one constantly opposing tort reform and favoring this type of behavior?

What a dishonest, vicious thread you post yet again.

The woman is largely *paralyzed*. That's the damage, not the two hours that caused it.

If I shoot you and paralyze you, can the damages be based on the split second the bullet hits you, and not the years you live with the paralysis?

The jab at Edwards, who did a lot of good work for the powerless, is more defense of evil by you, something we can count on from you consistently.

The legal system is set up to prevent the abuse of power by the powerful, to protect the quality of medical care by providing sufficient deterrents to wrongdoing.

Like any industry and interest, there's a political element, and the anti-lawyer side, the wealthy interests who the courts make acountable to the powerless they sometimes harm, have sided with the Republicans - the insurance industry in particular, but also other industries affected by lawsuits like the pharmaceutical industry - while the lawyers have gone to the other party. The lawyers are hardly always 'the good guys', but you would misreperesent them for dishonest partisan reasons.

You're just the sort of dupe who falls for the propaganda by the wealthy industries who want to implement 'tort reform' not to fix real problems but to deny any justice to the powerless they hurt, and you would (and do) parrot the lies here because you are a simple pawn of the right-wing ideology.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is very apparent the liability insurance is astronomical because of cases like the above.

Would you choose paralysis for a $10 million payment?

One thing to remember on the cost is that there's also a huge benefit in preventing wrongdoing. Businesses do cost-benefit analysis in decisions that affect people's lives and health (the auto industry was infamous for safety calculations estimating the cost of lawsuits for the people killed versus the cost of an improved design), and for large companies, large risks are needed to incent the right behavior.

That's a lot of the glue that keeps our society functioning well where consumers can largely count on the quality and safety of products.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: winnar111
Which party has been the one constantly opposing tort reform and favoring this type of behavior?

What a dishonest, vicious thread you post yet again.

The woman is largely *paralyzed*. That's the damage, not the two hours that caused it.

If I shoot you and paralyze you, can the damages be based on the split second the bullet hits you, and not the years you live with the paralysis?

The woman wasn't harmed by someone else. She fell down on her own.

Sue the hardwood flooring!

 

[alchemize]

LOL Edwards was an ambulance chaser and a douchebag. He wouldn't take a case unless he thought he could win it. He single handedly increased our C-section rates nation wide through his junk science which has sense been proven utterly wrong.

Edwards is directly guilty for more death and pain as a direct link to this increased C-section rate than any "powerless" person he represented.

I'll edit this post for a few choice morsels...

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards

"He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination."

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is very apparent the liability insurance is astronomical because of cases like the above.

Would you choose paralysis for a $10 million payment?

Are you implying this women or hospital made a choice to paralyze her? If not what is your point?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: winnar111

The woman wasn't harmed by someone else. She fell down on her own.

Sue the hardwood flooring!

I infer that her condition was greatly worsened by the unjustified delay in providing care.

If you can show that's not the case, post the evidence and I'll re-consider the response.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is very apparent the liability insurance is astronomical because of cases like the above.

Would you choose paralysis for a $10 million payment?

Are you implying this women or hospital made a choice to paralyze her? If not what is your point?

That the implication is that their negligence caused her condition to be far worsened, perhaps causing her paralysis.

You say that $10M is far too high for her being paralyzed.

So, would you happily accept the far too large sum of $10M for being paralyzed? I don't think it's high - though the size of the award may have the purpose of deterrence as well.

That's how it works. If a company profits $1B from a decision that hurts a hundred people and is utterly negligent on their part, then you can't charge them a fraction of that amount leavign it a very profitable decision and expect them not to do it again. You have to punish the wrongdoer enough to deter them from the wrong decision.

And when you do, the main way to punish is a financial penalty. And who better to receive that punishment than the victims who were harmed?

It doesn't always have to mean someone 'deserves' a sum for the harm, it can mean that the system works by providing adequate deterrence.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is very apparent the liability insurance is astronomical because of cases like the above.

Would you choose paralysis for a $10 million payment?

Are you implying this women or hospital made a choice to paralyze her? If not what is your point?

That the implication is that their negligence caused her condition to be far worsened, perhaps causing her paralysis.

You say that $10M is far too high for her being paralyzed.

So, would you happily accept the far too large sum of $10M for being paralyzed? I don't think it's high - though the size of the award may have the purpose of deterrence as well.

That's how it works. If a company profits $1B from a decision that hurts a hundred people and is utterly negligent on their part, then you can't charge them a fraction of that amount leavign it a very profitable decision and expect them not to do it again. You have to punish the wrongdoer enough to deter them from the wrong decision.

And when you do, the main way to punish is a financial penalty. And who better to receive that punishment than the victims who were harmed?

It doesn't always have to mean someone 'deserves' a sum for the harm, it can mean that the system works by providing adequate deterrence.

I didnt say anything about this case. Only used it as an example of why liability insurance is so high. I dont know the finer details of the case, do you?

That said liability insurance in this country is high for the healthcare industry because there are a lot of frvilous suits that would be tossed out with tort reform but are paid in settlement due to the hospital and insurance company seeing it as cheaper to pay it than a protracted court case.

There is still a place for true negligence cases to be tried and awarded a settlement. I dont disagree that financial settlement is the justice of the civil courtroom. But there is a lot of bogus lawsuits that get through that cost our economy a lot of money.

If the courts forced plantiffs to pay legal fee's when the case is deemed frvilous that should cut down on a lot of these cases.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Juddog
So what does this have to do with Obama again?

Oh yeah - nothing. Keep reaching for those non-issues winnar111.

Post something false and untrue about the Republican campaign and have it labeled a troll post, completely fabricate anything against the Dems = golden.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: alchemize
LOL Edwards was an ambulance chaser and a douchebag. He wouldn't take a case unless he thought he could win it. He single handedly increased our C-section rates nation wide through his junk science which has sense been proven utterly wrong.

Edwards is directly guilty for more death and pain as a direct link to this increased C-section rate than any "powerless" person he represented.

I'll edit this post for a few choice morsels...

The rise in such deliveries, to about 26 percent today from 6 percent in 1970, has failed to decrease the rate of cerebral palsy, scientists say. Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins.

An examination of Mr. Edwards's legal career also opens a window onto the world of personal injury litigation. In building his career, Mr. Edwards underbid other lawyers to win promising clients, sifted through several dozen expert witnesses to find one who would attest to his claims, and opposed state legislation that would have helped all families with brain-damaged children and not just those few who win big malpractice awards

"He took only those cases that were catastrophic, that would really capture a jury's imagination," Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination."

I'm not going to defend or attack Edwards on the C-section issue. Certainly there's much evidence of unnecessary C-sections being done. From a quick scanning of many of his cases, I see other elements of fault than just the lack of a C-section, but it would take more time and medical expertise to make any meaningful comment.

You however show no such restraint, happy to post the shrillest sort of wild attack.

As for his pursuit of profitable cases - that's standard procedure for lawyers. The issues are more complicated than you appear to understand. Here's one blogger's comment:

Let me get this straight ...

You think Edwards' experience as a trial lawyer is a bad thing?! That's nuts.
95% of all civil cases never make it to trial, and 100% of the those few that do are where the defendant has [justified] confidence that they will prevail at trial--as they most often do. In other words, "ambulance chasers," to use your loaded term, do not win or even go to many trials--they try to find cases to settle WITHOUT trial, and those are the cases where the defendant doesn't like the odds.

Even in the minority of cases (1/3) where a plaintiff prevails at trial (before appeals), the awards are often capped (Texas, California), and nearly every state has erected such pervasive anti-plaintiff barriers that it has the effect of creating a Darwinian weeding: the cases that survive all the nonsense (the affidavits of merit, etc.) are truly horrific, and the defendants STILL win most of the time.

But this is one reason that the awards are eye-poppingly large: there is so much pro-defendant bias built into the system that when an attorney like Edwards is able to win, the damages are huge by definition--if they weren't, the case would have settled or the lawyer wouldn't have taken it because they couldn't see a way to win it and couldn't afford to spend the $100k preparing for it.

So what does this tell us about Edwards, who made his money TRYING and winning the hard cases (the ones that won't settle because the defendant likes the odds at trial)? It says he is somone who is able to


- assess the thousands of oft-conflicting factors that go into assessing the value of a case--the probability of surviving summary disposition, reaching trial, and persuading a jury marinated in anti-"ambulance chaser" rhetoric and propaganda, and reach a conclusion about the net result of all the subtle factors

- develop the case, learn the details obsessively and prepare a strategy for every possible defense tactic, while at the same time figuring out how to cut away all those details and to explain the thing so clearly that he is able to persuade Southern juries to find for his clients and award them significant damages.

I'm not stumping for Edwards (I want to vote for Gore for Pres and Eliot Spitzer for VP in 2008) but to see someone suggest that Edwards' experience as a trial lawyer is a bad thing is just insane.
The skills that made Edwards a formidable trial lawyer are exactly the kinds of skills that make a good President: the ability to assess a complicated situation, decide a strategy and backup strategies for multiple contingencies, and then persuade others to adopt that same view of the case. Would that Emperor Chimpy had 1/100th of Edwards' ability.

As for Edwards' supposed lightweight status in foreign policy, what exactly has all the heavyweight foreign policy experience of the Bush junta done for us? He served six years as a US Senator, which is four more years than Obama has now, and two more years than Obama will have served in 2008.