Comments on: Loser pays: A cerebral palsy trial in Canada may bankrupt the plaintiff

By: Criminallopath

Criminallopath — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:40:00 +0000

Yes. No (it should be a legal requirement to practice). Yes (it does not follow as a conclusion to the affirmative to the previous question but stands as a conclusion in its own right).

By: DT35

DT35 — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:31:00 +0000

Criminallopath–
I’m not sure I understood your response. Does “barebacking” mean “without malpractice insurance”? Is your implication that doctors have a moral obligation to carry insurance so plaintiffs can collect from them more easily? If so, should plaintiffs have to post a bond to cover potential costs before filing suit?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 16:52:00 +0000

The 1st judge waived the “loser pays” because the physician’s medical records were in disorder causing a longer trial. I think the plaintiffs in this case should pay some, but not all, of the defendants costs.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 08:43:00 +0000

I practice in BC and take no pleasure from this at all – these people have had a devastating loss. They really should not have represented themselves , however , as I think this leads to total loss of perspective.
BC Womans is a good hospital , but have been criticised recently for a similar case where a decision was made to induce twins.
Many authorities worldwide do not advocate delivering twins vaginally and there is evidence to support this – as a practicing GP/OB doc for more than a decade , I would NEVER allow my wife to have twins vaginally.
Unfortunately this institution suffers a bit from the west coast granola factor .I think their underlying philosophy is avoid Csections at all costs!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 02:45:00 +0000

“Then when he turns 17, he gets diagnosed with a mild learning disability. Then of course the parents sue the doc from something that happened 17 years ago. Dont tell me that never happens either, because i’ve seen 4 cases just like that.”

Got a cite to that case and the result? Oh, and that has nothing to do with being an OB. It has to do with the victim being a minor.

By: Criminallopath

Criminallopath — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:48:00 +0000

Anonymous 8:00 PM -

I absolutely agree. The type of junk claim that you have described is yet another perfect example of the broken nature of our litigation system.

DT35 -

Kind of reminds me of the barebacking neurosurgeon in Florida.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 01:00:00 +0000

Ob/gyn has a ridiculous statute of limitations on it.

You can have a perfectly healthy baby, perfectly normal life. Then when he turns 17, he gets diagnosed with a mild learning disability. Then of course the parents sue the doc from something that happened 17 years ago. Dont tell me that never happens either, because i've seen 4 cases just like that.

Absolutely ridiculous.

By: DT35

DT35 — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 23:15:00 +0000

Potential imposition of costs is rarely much of a deterrent because plaintiffs are so often Life’s little losers even before the verdict is rendered: substance abusers, welfare recipients, decedents’ estates with no assets. In the reported case, plaintiffs apparently have assets, but will avoid actually paying much/anything through the use of bankruptcy protections.

By: Criminallopath

Criminallopath — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:45:00 +0000

If memory serves me correctly, the People’s Republic of Kalifornia requires a CCP Section 998 filing at the time of trial if the underlying non-binding arbitration award is de novoed. A subsequent jury award under the arbitration amount is considered a loss to the plaintiff in the eyes of the court and results in a looser pays situation. I am sure one of our legal eagles can correct me on this if I am wrong.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 21:46:00 +0000

These people were lawyers even; they knew the risks. Whose advice did they take to bring suit ten years after the alleged fact?