Comments on: A doctor sues an 11-year old girl

By: mm

mm — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 03:29:00 +0000

Some reasons the doc. could have done this:

1. wanted to be in the news
2. tired of the hospital...chose the court to visit
3. thought the gal was going to sue, so he decided to go first
4. redefining warmth-to what though?
5. anything...just anything

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:22:00 +0000

Fortunately, the jury found in favor of the defendant and litigious doc got nothing.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:42:00 +0000

Sigh – anyone remember the accidents? You know, those things where sometimes something bad happens and everyone just says
“oops” and moves on…

I wonder what the girl will learn from this, except not to go roller skating – or trust doctors.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:35:00 +0000

This jerk is an infertility specialist of all things: "At SIRM™ -New Jersey, you'll be under the care of Dr. Alexander Dlugi, one of SIRM's warmest and most seasoned physicians."

If this fellow is really one of the "warmest" of this physician practice, can you imagine what the others must be like!

I cannot think of much lower an act than suing an eleven year old in this circumstance. It makes one wonder if this is some kind of reactive psychotic retribution brought about by a previous unwarranted legal encounter.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 02 Mar 2007 01:17:00 +0000

"This is about a member of the litigious public"

More urban legend. Tort claims have been on the decline for over a decade.

Try again.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 22:23:00 +0000

Does this doctor not know how to operate his bicycle or its brakes?

As a cyclist, I have a hard time finding his claim that a pedestrian, even one wearing inline skates, could be responsible for his bicycle accident. He either does not have a clue about how or where to ride a bike, or he is a pathetic lame-ass trying to set the stage for his disability retirement. Either way, I sincerely hope he loses the case, unless he can show the girl deliberately did something to cause him to lose control, which the story does not seem to support.

The judge must be looking for light entertainment on his docket, because this case surely belongs on Judge Judy.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 20:38:00 +0000

Gasman, if the child was roller-skating in the street, thats almost certainly a traffic violation.

Where were the kids parents, allowing patently unsafe activity?

I agree that an adult should have known better - but the parent adults should have REALLY known better.

By: Gasman

Gasman — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 19:00:00 +0000

Anon #2 just mindlessly spouting off.

This is not about physicians and malpractice. This is about a member of the litigious public (who happens to be a doc) suing for a nutty cause.

In this instance the plaintiff's assertion that the girl acted unreasonably is contrary to what a reasonable cycling adult would expect. Approach a kid on wheels, shout at them, ring a bell and 'unexpected' actions are to a reasonable person, wholly expected.
I can think of no sport or activity where the overtaking party does not have the responsibility to avoid collision. The girl, being overtaken, has the right of way.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 18:21:00 +0000

Huh. And you guys complain about how litigious the American public is.

Guess it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 17:33:00 +0000

It happened on a Chester Township street in October 2003. Dr. Alexander Dlugi, a prominent endocrinologist, approached Lauren Ellis, then 11, from behind, shouted “watch out” and rang his bicycle bell. As the girl turned around on her in-line skates, the two collided, and the doctor tumbled from his bike.
Seems that the girl was an injured party here. Interesting, how it was the doctor who sued rather than the girl who had a real case.