Posted on 12/15/2007 1:46:38 PM PST by Graybeard58
Ambulance chasers rejoice! If you don't already have a BMW for every day of the week, you can buy one now. If you only have an 80-foot yacht, you'll soon be able to afford a 200-footer. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has given you a bonanza.
Dr. Roland Florio was treating David Sacca, 75, for emphysema, hypertension and lung cancer. As part of Mr. Sacca's treatment, Dr. Florio prescribed oxycodone, Zaroxolyn, prednisone, Flomax, potassium, Plaxil, oxazepam and fursemide. A common side effect of several of the drugs is drowsiness, and on March 22, 2002, Sacca passed out while driving and struck and killed Kevin Coombes, 10, who was standing on a sidewalk with a friend.
Kevin's mother sued Mr. Sacca and Dr. Florio. A lower court threw out the case, but on Tuesday, the Supreme Judicial Court said the case could proceed to trial, leaving it up to lawyers and juries to decide whether a physician is liable for injuries suffered by someone he never saw. Justice Roderick L. Ireland, author of the lead opinion, compared doctors to bartenders who can be held liable for injuries caused by their customers.
That's a false analogy. Bartenders serve recreational products, watch their customers consume it and can cut them off at any time without affecting their customer's health. Doctor prescribes medicines essential to the preservation of their patients' life and health, nearly always aren't present when the drugs is taken and can cut off treatment only at their patients' risk.
In addition, unlike alcohol, prescription drugs come with copious written warnings, usually with stickers attached to the pill bottles and with detailed sheets listing possible side effects. Further, Mr. Sacca had been on the medications for months before the accident without serious side effects.
Said Dr. Dale Magee, president of the Massachusetts Medical Society: "This is one more straw on the backs of practicing physicians who feel the liability challenges out there are being broadened. Now they're being held responsible for things that happen beyond the physician-patient relationship." Added Reni Gertner, editor of the Massachusetts Medical Law Report: "Absolutely the case has precedent-setting value."
Now that the courts want to hold deep-pocketed doctors responsible for what happens to people they've never met or treated, the only limit to their potential liability is the imagination of trial lawyers who have renewed incentive to chase every ambulance. And next time your health insurance co-pay goes up or you find the specialist you hoped to consult isn't taking new patients, thank the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and its hideous decision.
Would that they were only worthless! IMO, "worthless" would be a promotion! ;-)
FWIW, Roderick L. Ireland was one of the four judges who
created gay marriage (with Chief Justice Margaret Marshall,
Judith A. Cowin, and John M. Greaney).
Not like anyone bothers to read them. And if anyone reading this comment actually does read the labels and follows the instructions, congratulations.
Having worked in pharmacy benefits for several years, you wouldn't believe the number of people that blatantly disregard the warnings and instructions, and then seem almost proud of having done so.
Patients self-medicate, and then wonder why they're out of medication before they can refill their scripts, complain about side effects that could have been avoided by following directions.
One of the dumbest things I ever heard was a woman calling to demand her money back because after taking a diabetic medication, she gained 24 pounds. First warning on the instructions? "May cause weight gain." She also waited ten months after taking the medication to complain about it.
Sorry - meds are a pet peeve with me.
On the lighter side, my wife and I just got home from the hospital with our newborn daughter. :)
I don’t suppose it is much better in any other state, but if I was an MD ... I’d be outa’ that state before Christmas.
Yes. but are they in the requisite 104 different languages required?
My sister, an R.N. told me of a woman, who having skipped her B.C. pills for two months, took two months worth to, "get caught up".
I agree 1000 %. Judges and parole boards should be held to at least the same standards as doctors.
After a painstaking interview with the patient and her husband, the doctor determined that the woman wasn't taking the pills by mouth. She was inserting them into her vagina.
And now we know why folks are stuck paying hundreds of dollars every month for basic health coverage.
In Massachusetts, with Romney’s socialized medicine
installed, and the illegal aliens now able to sue for
their own car accidents and other mischief, the expected
increase of premiums and state loss (1/2 billion dollar
loss this year anticipated) may well be the lower limit.
Serving jury duty is a very important civil duty. In my book, it is just behind voting. Our civil justice system cannot stand without citizen jurors.
When will people realized, our courts are as good as our jurors!
Unfortunately, there is less and less respect for the medical profession in the population as whole, as the left media controls what too many citizens read, hear, and believe. The courts - run by judges who were former lawyers, in some instances former amblance chasers themselves - are playing into this anti-doctor sentiment, especially in "liberal" states like Massachusetts.
Seems as if Edwards might want to consider changing his antiperspirant.
Of course not. That's one of the reasons the legal system is so decadent. The plaintiffs would rather have the uneducated and unwashed masses decide with their hearts, rather than with their brains. (BTW, that's exactly how the Dummycrats would like people to vote. Small wonder that the Dummies are the party of the trial lawyers!)
Ping!
There are two ways to go with this ruling.
1. As a physician, you can pull up stakes, move to another state, and practice there. This will cause a shortage of doctors in MA, but for all tense and purposes that would be a good thing. We need to get back to the premise of "you reap what you sow". If the people of the State of Massachusetts want to vote idiots into office, who then appoint these judges to the bench; you get what you deserve. No medical care
2. The docs can stay in the state, and raise their rates 300% to cover the outrageous insurance premiums that they will be paying. Once again, the populace will be up in arms, but too bad for them. Read Rule #1. "If you reapin' it, you gonna be sowin' it".
If the Government takes over the health care industry, lawyers will have the ultimate deep pockets to go after.
To: Piers-the-Ploughman, dearolddad
I wish crime victims could sue the government for crimes committed against them by criminals released before the whole sentence was served.
I agree 1000 %. Judges and parole boards should be held to at least the same standards as doctors.
I am with you both on this. Another thing, a judge (lawyer) is ruling in favor of lawyers (sheisters) over a Doctor. I would like to see Doctors have ruling authority when there is a conflict between lawyers.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.