Lawyers in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit With Alex Rodriguez

Alex Rodriguez a name synonymous with great ball player and also synonymous with illegal steroid use. It is no surprise that he would sue for medical malpractice if he was not told by the Yankee doctor that a Scan revealed a problem which could make it risky for him to continue to play. If true the doctor may have put the team’s interest in having it's player ready to play, ahead of Rodriguez’ interest of taking more time off in light of the risks of playing injured.

It is no surprise that the lawyers for the doctor will want a video deposition of Rodriguez which can be leaked to the news outlets. It is just another tool in the bag of tricks lawyers who represent insurance companies use to make it hard on the injured party.

Rodriguez is accustomed to playing by his own set of rules. Normally I would side with the injured party, but it is hard to be empathetic for “poor” Alex Rodriguez. The rules, at least in Connecticut where I practice law, allow for video tape depositions. There seems to be some justice in Rodriquez having to play, at least in a lawsuit he brought, by the rules. I hope to see that video tape deposition on the news someday. How about you?

Dewey LeBoeuf Wreckage

Dewey LeBoeuf – oh the arrogance of the powerful. Power corrupts. If the allegations are true of course. The allegations are simply that the leaders of this oh so powerful law firm, where the key partners made millions, for cooking the books to get money from banks and others. Too many lawyers succumb to the temptation of playing games. Lawyers are trusted with the money of their clients, they are trusted with the cases that their clients need pursued, when they cause damage they should be brought to justice.

When the leaders in a company by fraud damage the company, they damage the other owners. We see this in the press all the time, with big corporations being mismanaged by the leadership team. The other owners here are the innocent partners in the law firm. I am left to wonder if some of the other partners in the firm who may not have known about the cooking of the books will now sue the guilty, again assuming the allegations are true. They should, they too were damaged.

When An Attorney Won't Take Your Case

A recent article from The Epoch Times, titled "Patient Harm: When An Attorney Won't Take Your Case":

"More than 450 attorneys were surveyed for the Emory study, “Uncovering the Silent Victims of the American Medical Liability System[11],” which found that three out of four medical malpractice attorneys reject more than 90 percent of the cases they screen [12]. The study found:

• About 95 percent of patients who are harmed [13] will find it extremely difficult to get representation.
• Almost no attorney will take a case, even when the chance of winning is 95 percent, if the damages are less than $50,000 [14]. 
• More than half refuse any case, no matter the likelihood of winning, if the damages are less than $250,000 [15].

The study recommended reforming the system by increasing funding for legal services [16], so attorneys could be compensated for their time; making defendants who lose a case pay the plaintiff’s attorney fees [17]; or sending malpractice complaints to an administrative system [18] with neutral adjudicators and medical experts so patients wouldn’t need an attorney."

The simple reality is that we have to devote tens of thousands of dollars and sometimes thousands of hours on each medical or legal malpractice case we take on. We are committed to the cases we take. We spend the money and we spend the time. Unfortunately that means we cant take on many of the cases that come to our attention. Call us. Maybe your case will be one we will take on. 

Good Medicine for Medical Malpractice Claims

From the blog of a medical malpractice defense firm, four common things that can strengthen a defense:

1. Documentation, Documentation, Documentation: Testimony of recollections and how things are normally done can be considered as evidence, she says. “They are much more effective, however, when they’re backed up with documentation in the medical record.”

2. Use of Plain Language: “Doctors who communicate the rationale for their decisions in clear concise language are in a much better position to defend those decisions later, and their decisions are less likely to be questioned in the first place,” Christian writes.

3. Educated Office Staff: Christian says malpractice cases often involve communication by office staff to people calling for appointments or refills, canceling appointments or sharing concerns during office visits, so it’s key that the staff understands documentation and communication procedures.

4. Intelligent, Caring Physicians: “Jurors want to know that the doctor had the patient’s best interest in mind and used his or her best judgement to make a rational decision,” she says.

This is all true in my experience as well. Yes doctors who follow these rules or make a jury believe they did, will do better when sued for malpractice. Keep in mind that these are the same impressions that a lawyer will try to convey to a jury in a legal malpractice claim against the lawyer. All of this can be true and the lawyer may still be responsible for legal malpractice. All of these can be true and a jury could and should find against the doctor or the lawyer if that doctor or lawyer committed malpractice which resulted in damage to the patient or client.

We sue doctors. We sue lawyers. We sue accountants. We sue all professionals. But only if they breached the standard of care (committed malpractice) which resulted in serious injury. Call us if you have questions.

Read more: http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202642115405/Good-Medicine-for-Medical-Malpractice-Claims#ixzz2tRMPSrCU

Client Information is Privileged

Lawyers simply are forbidden from sharing stories about their clients. No bragging about who they represent. No jokes about who they represent. No describing in detail the case that was so interesting. Unless, of course, they have permission of the client.  If the client says it is ok, then it is ok.

Even if the client information is not privileged, the lawyer can't share it. Privileged information is the secret you tell your lawyer - "I really did kill that guy and I hid the murder weapon in the woods". That is a privileged statement and the lawyer obviously can't tell anyone.

Here is the less obvious secret, or not so secret information, that the lawyer can't blab about. In Connecticut, secret or not, if someone has filed for a divorce it is public information. But a lawyer who represents a client in a divorce shouldn't go telling people. Why? Because confidential information, or information that a client may reasonably want to be held in confidence, is still protected.  Even if it is not a privilege, even if it is not a secret, the lawyer should not talk about it without permission of the client.  There are of course exceptions and other rules that apply so speak to a lawyer if you think your lawyer has blabbed when he or she should have kept quiet. 

Bottom line is expect your lawyer to respect your privacy even if the information is not privileged.

Making a Case For New Thinking About Whistleblowing & Retaliation

It is sweet and simple, there are laws designed to protect Whistleblowers. There are laws that reward whistleblowers with lots and lots of money. Yet we hear about people going to jail or being sued for doing what you or I may consider blowing the whistle on some wrong or injustice. The fact is that like most things in our society there are laws which proscribe how something has to be done. Bottom line - if you think you could be a whistleblower, call an attorney first to figure out if you are protected and if so is there any special way you have to do it. http://t.co/MBTml32wTt

Medical Malpractice in the Outpatient Setting

JAMA a well-respected medical journal, recently included a commentary on studies of Medical Malpractice cases filed in one year in Massachusetts. Although not the general focus of the article there was an interesting fact that is consistent with what we have seen in many of the Medical Malpractice cases that we have handled. 72% of medical malpractice claims against general internists and family physicians in Massachusetts are claims of a failure to diagnose. In simple terms almost three quarters of the malpractice claims against the first line of medical defense, the family Doc, are related to a doctor saying don’t worry about that, or not catching something he/she should have caught. The malpractice claims against these Family Docs and Internists were against less than 4% of the Docs. So an individual’s risk is very low.

One way that you can protect yourself from being a victim of Malpractice, is to not only to give a sigh of relief when a Doc tells you not to worry about this or that. Rather if you think it may be bad, seek a second opinion. If possible go to a doctor experienced in that particular issue. You wouldn't trust your malpractice claim to just any lawyer; in the same way you should be careful not to trust your deepest concerns to just any doctor.