A burglar sues a doctor after breaking into his house

Apparently the doctor used “excessive force” as he shot the burglar in his home:

An accused burglar is suing the doctor who shot him after the man broke into the physician’s house in Janesville.

The man is awaiting trial on charges of burglary and criminal damage. In the meantime, he’s filed suit against Doctor Michael Rainiero. He claims Rainiero was negligent in using excessive force after he found the man in his home. The man was shot in the back. The lawsuit says he suffered “severe and permanent injuries.”

email

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

  • lawyersux

    Not nearly as good as the sodomite who is suing the makers of “Grand Theft Auto” for 600 million dollars stating the game told some Nut to kill his entire family. Chris Rock put it best, we used to put those kids in “crazy schools” but now we let them come to our school and blame somebody else!

  • Criminallopath

    An who is going to be on the stand supporting this bogus claim? None other than the local psychiatric whore or, given the exposure of this case, a harem of psychiatric whores. The key to stopping these junk lawsuits lies within the medical community itself. A few licensure revocation hearings when it comes to the worst of the whores and the problem would go away.

  • Okulus

    Now you see the benefit of a laser aiming device.

  • Dr Samson Isberg

    Mr Criminallopath again has a point. But:

    Some women are prostitutes. That doesn’t mean all women are prostitutes, or that the solution to prostitution lies within womanhood itself, or the female society or gender.

    Without male customers, prostitution would be extinct in five minutes flat.

    Without lawyers, the medical-forensic streetwalkers would be out of business too.

    Yes, medical “expert witnesses” should be tried and convicted for perjury if they do so. But without customers, these tarts wouldn’t be a problem.

  • CJD

    Does this guy have a lawyer or did he file on his own?

  • Criminallopath

    Samson:

    Agreed. But, over which field do the allopaths have greater control – their own or the legal field? Complaining about the lawyers is not going to make the problem go away. Dealing with the “forensic medical experts” is a problem that is much easier to handle in-house if the will is there to do so. The attorneys are so in bed with the clinicians that none of these cases can even be filed without “expert medical testimony.”

  • lawyersux

    Re: Criminallopath

    When I was in college majoring in Political Science there was a guy who would bring up Israel no matter what the topic was. We could be talking about Sino-American relations, the Vietnam War, or Mexican Sweatshops and this guy would somehow relate it to it’s effect on Israel. Ditto with Crimnallopath. We could be talking about the latest advances in Eye laser surgery and somehow it relates to the 1/10th of 1% of doctors who suck dick by testifying in court.

  • John J. Coupal

    If that incident had occurred in Kentucky, the investigating po leece would have bought the good doc a box of cigars.

  • Criminallopath

    Samson:

    Agreed. But, over which field do the allopaths have greater control – their own or the legal field? Complaining about the lawyers is not going to make the problem go away. Dealing with the “forensic medical experts” is a problem that is much easier to handle in-house if the will is there to do so. The attorneys are so in bed with the clinicians that none of these cases can even be filed without “expert medical testimony.”

  • lawyersux

    Why do you have such bad jock itch about the 1/10th of 1% of doctor retards who testify in courts?

  • Criminallopath

    1/10th of 1%? You must be mad!

    Involved in a WC case? Involved in the ER with some walk-in litigant claiming injuries from an auto accident and looking to beef up their claim? Working in private practice and have a litigant claiming MVA related injury? Whoring as a “patient (aka litigant) advocate” is the norm in the field (especially if one whores on a lien basis). Clinicians with zero training, background and experience in reconstructing auto accidents or slip and fall accidents opining that the same were the cause of every diagnosis under the world based on post hoc ergo propter hoc “the patient told me so” junk science.

  • anonymous

    Sound like the good doctor needs a little target practice.

  • Okulus

    Crimanallopath, I certainly can’t disagree with your condemnation of opportunistic doctors who offer testimony contrary to best available published data and practices based on those. But as much as most doctors–and probably 99%, even–would want that kind of testimony squelched, the existing law prohibits this. For medical cases, I think it should be allowed for a judge to empanel say, three experts on the matter who should be paid for by the court, and who may give testimony that could be examined by counsel of either party. No hired guns by either side.
    Then let the jury decide. Do you think for one minute that ATLA would allow this? I wonder. The law allows courts to accept other amicus briefing, why not this? I think juries are smart enough to weigh testimony fairly they know isn’t coming from one side or the other.

  • lawyersux

    I for one have nothing to do with the court system and I know at least 100 doctors and none of them have anything to do with the lawsuit game. The only time we come in contact with the sodomites is when we get sued. I still don’t understand why you have such a bug up your ass about the few doctors who do this. As long as there’s a way to abuse the system by being litigous there will be a rare doctor who will play along with the sodomites. When I read about this stuff, bullshit like “silicosis.com”, it’s usually one piece of shit doctor doing paperwork for 10,000 patient frauds and their sodomites.

  • Criminallopath

    Lawyersux, you must lead a very sheltered life. In this neck of the woods, providers from SCOI, UCLA, USC, Kaiser (even) and not to mention the hundreds of others of little pure practice physician groups have engaged in this junk science nonsense. The problem is not limited to a few bad applies, it is endemic in the method of “clinical cause analysis.” Providers are not mind readers and are not human lie detectors. Given this, the majority of “clinical causation” is pure nonsense in that it is based on “litigant denies prior related history” or having the litigant tell you about when their subject complanits started. On the singular case level, this is a junk science PI case. Having hundreds of lieing litigous dirtbag patients and their equal dirtbag credulous providers dipping their wicks in the ATLA slime makes a junk science epidemiology study. Here is a hint, litigants can and do lie, exagerate and feign when it comes to building their cases.

    I have always thought that it would be instructive to perform the following study. Take a group of 4Fers and make them do some neck exercises for two to three days until they get a little bit of delayed onset muscle soreness. Then, send them out to the local chiros and allopaths and provide a history of rear-end MVA involvement. I hypothesize that the error rate in false attribution of the diagnosed cervical strain/sprain to the “MVA” would be near 100%.

  • anonymous

    Do you think this malady is endemic to California? I know this is a hard place to make a legitimate living as a physician, so environmental factors may favor such behavior. I have to agree that I do not personally know any physicians that do this whoring. The very few that I know of who do are retired, mostly from Ivory Tower backgrounds where they did little direct patient care, and are essentially outside the working medical community. They tend to have the gray hair and long resumes favored by plaintiffs attorneys. Unfortunately taking away their licenses would not hurt them as much as bruise their hypertrophied egos.

  • Charity Doc

    That’s why whenever you shoot a burglar who has tresspassed your home you must shoot to kill! Maiming a burglar only gives him the opportunity to sue you and the legal system to scrutinize your action. If he was killed then in the eyes of the law the scumbag got what he deserved for breaking into another man’s home and threatening his family.

    I for one do not own a gun because I will shoot to kill anyone who tresspass my home and threaten my family.

  • CJD

    Anonymous,

    Why do you call it “whoring”? Would you testify for a plaintiff? Or even a defendant? Why or why not? If you did, wouldn’t you expect to be paid? What do you think a fair wage would be? Remember, you’re going to be an outcast because people just like you will call you a whore even if they know literally nothing about the case.

    How can you complain about the expert system when “good doctors” who aren’t “whores” won’t even testify when they know there is malpractice?

    As for allopath, while he rages against those doctors who testify for their patients, who would he have testify? If I have a client who has a particular injury as a result of a car wreck, I need their physician there to explain his/her findings, the nature of the injury, the amount of past and future care, and the cost thereof. I’m sorry this is an inconvenience, but wouldn’t you want your physician to do that for you if you were hurt?

  • Criminallopath

    “If I have a client who has a particular injury as a result of a car wreck, I need their physician there to explain his/her findings, the nature of the injury, the amount of past and future care, and the cost thereof. I’m sorry this is an inconvenience, but wouldn’t you want your physician to do that for you if you were hurt?”

    Nonsense. Asuming facts not in evidence. What aspect of clinical medicine allows one to determine the actual severity of the collison (not the exagerated BS that is peddled by the litigant…er…patient)? Absolutely none. What unique diagnostic test is there to determine MVA caused injury vs. that which can be obtained from any other source? None. Parrotting the patient is not science nor is relating subjective complaint onset, for which there is no independent method of verifcation, to an actual objective structural injury. Read the study by Castro et al. in the International Journal of Legal Medicine. Yet, this type of crap is what is passed off as “science” in the courtroom. I have no sympathy for the medical profession when they get a dose of their own medicine on junk science med mal cases in which the same methodology is employed.

    The more I think about it, the more worth while it would be to conduct the study that I suggested. A 100% error rate for “clincial cause assessment” would shake the PI world a bit.

  • lawyersux

    The more I read about this shit from criminalallopath, the more I think how it would be a low risk way to open a clinic call”Back-injury doctor” or “mva’s-are-us” and fill out insurance forms for litigous scumbags. They will never sue you, and all you are doing is rubber-stamping their bullshit. How do I get into this business, i’m tired of having these same drug addicts come into my ER and threaten to sue me when I won’t give them a script for 200 percocets.

  • anonymous

    CJD:

    First of all, I would like to acknowledge “whoring” as a term originated by another poster whom we all know well. Other terms credited to this poster include sheeple, bovine-like people, and ovine people.

    But I digress. “Whoring” has nothing to do with whether you work as an expert witness. Most doctors who testify as experts are NOT whores.

    Whoring is giving deceitful and partial testimony to support a position, in this case for financial gain. Oftentimes one trial attorney in a civil or criminal case could be defined as such. It is not the truth such attorney is seeking, rather it is notoriety and resultant fortune. Said attorney will represent his client even if he knows his client is guilty. Of course everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense, but it is sure should be hard to sleep at night knowing you have ruined the lives of others by being better able to convince a jury of your position when it is not the truth. This is why so few physicians could be trial attorneys; most are interested in the truth.

    You would be shocked to know what some doctors do for FREE but with great RISK to try to protect the public from dangerous or deceitful practitioners. Merely being a great doctor is enough to engender jealousy in professional colleagues to the extent that it may endanger ones life. I know of a terrific Harvard grad pediatric ophthalmologist who paid with his life a few years back in Tucson. Do not think for a minute that testifying against or endangering the livelihood of a physician is without risk to life and limb.

  • Criminallopath

    lawyersux:

    It is easier than you think. Between the medical worship that goes on in the courts when it comes to failing to use even the smallest amount of logic and scienec in evaluating junk science clinical causation testimony, the fact that your dirtbag crackhead patients would become infinately reliable regarding both history and veracity (not to mention that you would develop the magical powers of lie detecting), and finally you would have tons of money for bending over and selling that ring to the ATLA.

  • CJD

    “Oftentimes one trial attorney in a civil or criminal case could be defined as such. It is not the truth such attorney is seeking, rather it is notoriety and resultant fortune.”

    That’s an easy statement to make, but hard to prove, don’t you think? One could say the same about some physicians, as well.

    “This is why so few physicians could be trial attorneys; most are interested in the truth.”

    Nonsense. They are no less or more interested in the same things that drive everyone. Most all of us of any profession want to help people, and we want to earn a living.

    You talk about “the truth” as if it’s always objectively clear. Yet physicians themselves can and do have honest disagreements about what the standard of care in many situations is. And in everyday life, “the truth”, is nearly always a matter of perspective. If you and I, standing on different corners of the street, see the same accident, my “truth” is going to be different from yours because of our perspective.

    When I handle breach of contract issues, the cause of these battles is that two people left the negotiations with a different, but “truthful” understanding of a particular clause or expectation based on that clause. Hell, when physicians in partnership break up and start suing each other, that’s often the reason it gets to a lawsuit.

    So pontificating on physicians seeking “the truth” is a little, shall we say, misleading.

    “You would be shocked to know what some doctors do for FREE but with great RISK to try to protect the public from dangerous or deceitful practitioners.”

    What kind of a profession is it that the other members look down on you for exposing a poor member? Not a very good one, i would submit. As for the person who evidently got killed by another clearly crazy person who he cost a job, that is not unique to physicians. Crazy people hold lots of jobs, even as attorneys.

  • anonymous

    “What kind of a profession is it that the other members look down on you for exposing a poor member? Not a very good one, i would submit.”

    Th paraphrase: that’s an easy statement to make, but hard to prove, don’t you think?

    I don’t know anybody who would “look down on you” for exposing a poor member. Quite the contrary. But there is an old saying about what goes around comes around, and every physician will have a poor outcome from time to time. There is no “no fault” provision in this case, just the potential for a claim. This does not necessarily mean that person is a poor physician. Many physicians are hesitant to point fingers because they acknowledge their own imperfection. This may come as a surprise to those in other professions.