Flea gets sued

So here’s para 27 from the complaint received by myself on May 7, 2006.

“the conduct of Dr. (myself) was reckless, willful and/or wanton, thus warranting the imposition of punitive damages against him in an amount to be established at hearing.” And you should see the previous 26 paragraphs!

Frightening, yes. But let’s look at these “complaints” objectively.

First, patients sue for only 3 reasons: Vengence, opportunity (winning the lottery), and redress of an imbalance ( the wrong leg was cut off, the leg cannot be replaced, and the law allows so-called money damages to act as a substitute for the missing leg.)

The tort system is designed for the third reason, and I don’t really have any objection to that. Obviously I object to the first two.

So let’s look at these “complaints.”

Courts don’t like their time taken up by frivolous or weak lawsuits. Courts want their time taken up by firm complaints with substance. The legal term is “justiciable,” meaning “capable of being tried in a court of law or equity.” In plain terms a real controversy must be present. Can you imagine how a court would treat a complaint which read “Dr. X is a nice guy, he tried real hard to take care of me, I realize sometimes bad things happen, but I want to come into your court, sue, and get paid a large sum of money as compensation.” The court would not take this complaint seriously, and no lawyer worth his salt would write such a complaint.

So all these statements which make the doctor sound like the first cousin to Jeffery Dallmer are simply boilerplate verbage, albeit required.

The problem is physicians have little knowledge or experience of how the legal system works, so when a legal complaint like what Dr. Flea and I received arrives, it rocks you to the core.

Physicians, in their graduate education, and perhaps in medical school should receive at least a modicum of legal training.