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.
If this sentence is copied verbatim from the editorial, someone failed in proofreading.
This is a moderate volume ping list, one or two per day at most, some days none. About no particular subject but always with a conservative view point.
If you want on this list let me know.
If you want off, you have to pay me.
This is exactly why I never try to get out of jury duty. Every time I go I pray for a case like this. They let me go the last three times in a row though without me saying a word.
But I get the drift.
So do I.
But then,OTOH,the judges of the Massachusetts Supreme Court have consistently proven themselves in recent years to be the most worthless individuals on the face of God's green earth,so.....
third party malpractice liability. This opens an incredibly large door and will send malpractice premiums through the roof in Mass. It will also result in another layer of defensive medicine the scope of which will take several years to appreciate. The bottom line will be a massive increase in medical costs. Glad I don’t have to pay for med insurance in Mass., I get hammered enough here in Doctor friendly Indiana.
INCOMING
BTTT
This is one of the most poorly written articles in the past week. The author seems to imply that Dr. Florio never saw the patient. Or is it that the patient wasn't seen by the doctor on the day he killed the little boy? Eeesh.
If you have a degree in the sciences, medicine,or engineering the plaintiffs in this type of suit do not want you on a jury. They do not want people with logical thinking processes.
I think the article is refering to the relationship between the doctor and the 10 year old that was hit.
Passed out, or fell asleep? Those are two different things -- especially important when the allegation is that he was made too drowsy by the medication.
Dr. Florio never saw the little boy who was killed by his patient’s drowsiness. The little boy’s mother is suing the doctor.
Completely absurd, of course. If a doctor told me to take some Nyquil and told me to take a teaspoon at night, I could drink the whole bottle, crash my car, and then the person I killed could sue my doctor.
Nice, isn’t it? Kind of like sueing gun manufacturers for a guy who fires a gun straight up in the air in a crowded place and kills someone.
It’s funny, my law school torts class began with the statement that jurors are idiots. This at a pretty top-tier law institution that isn’t known for rolling out ambulance chasers.
Ah—I see now. Thanks.
I wish crime victims could sue the government for crimes committed against them by criminals released before the whole sentence was served.
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.