Kevin, M.D. - Medical Weblog

I can see why a trial attornery would be concerned about Flea's posts. Flea s showing how much of a trial is about the show and not the law or what is right or wrong. It is hard to argue against legal reform when a trial is not about the "legality" rather it is about the "presentation".

Tennessee has adopted a "standard Practice of law" in a legal malpractice case. I am interested to see if one attorney's pre trial instructions differ from anothers and if it therefore leads to increased legal malpractice suits. So, is Flea then opening the door for people to review their own pre-trial instructions to see how it compares?
 

I think flea's post's are a real window for those of us who have not gone through the process (yet, we all do eventually). More to the point ET's post show the inherent difference between docs and lawyers goals. Though I have not been through a trial I have been through the claim process. I also have had multiple "bad outcomes" which could have (or may have) led to a suit. The bigger issue I have had is every single lawyer I have delt with has told me not to talk with the family about the events and outcome. This is plainly wrong and I will never ever follow this idiocy of advice (from a docs perspective). IMO the family has the right to know exactly what happened to the best of our knowledge and an apology if necessary (legalities be damned). Hiding anything or not being completely forthcoming is simply wrong and unethical. I will never follow a lawyer's, risk manager's advice on this subject. I have always been a firm believer in "my mother's rule". If what happened to the patient happened to my mother what would I want for information. This always has cleared up any ethical qualms I have had about following a lawyer's advice on the subject. My question to eric is what if what happened to flea's patient happened to his child. what type of info would he want from the doc? Yes this is not a direct anology (flea is talking aboutthe court case not necessarily the outcome). BUT a huge problem with medicine is the legal profession telling medical providers not to be completely forthcoming in bad outcomes. It is purely and simply wrong and frankly one of the reasons why the laypublic has lost faith in our profession.
 

My question to eric is what if what happened to flea's patient happened to his child. what type of info would he want from the doc?

I would want to know everything possible with stark candor.

But speaking with the family was not what my posting was about, but rather, the risks of waiving the attorney-client privilege by discussing contacts with your lawyers.

We have seen blogs from jurors. We have seen live-blogging from the press at trial (Scooter Libby). We have a blogging jurist (Court of Appeals judge Richard Posner). But a blogging defendant in a medical malpractice trial is, I think, a real first. It is fascinating to watch, but it does have risks, which I tried to address.

--ET
 

A complaint about lawyers I can endorse. A lawyer generally is very myopic about the law. I know one who always prefaced the answer to any question with, "you want the practical answer or the legal one." Most lwayers won't draw that distinction and you have to be the one to tell them enough is enough. It seems ridiculous until millions of dollars ride on one or two clauses in a contract (i.e. Imus)
 

BTW, I'm sure that the plaintiff's attorney is or will become aware of Dr. Flea's blog. Unless he's lying about dates, there is enough information in it already given that it is going to trial and involves the death of a child. There are just not enough cases like that for her not to know that it is her case that Dr. Flea is blogging about. It would be interesting to contact her after the trial to see if it affected anything.
 

Interesting analysis of what Flea is risking.

I've thought on more than one occasion that Flea should probably not post anything until after the trial. Write the posts, timestamp them for the benefit of the readers, and then release one per day (for instance) after it's all said and done.

Granted there's no real-time feedback and support from readers, but perhaps that sort of thing would be safer to seek in the offline world...
 

As I stated eric this was not a direct anology but it brings up bigger issues when the legal profession tells a doctor to be quite about issues that ethically the doc needs to bring up honestly and completely with patient's and their families. We both know this a common occurence (I can remember multiple episodes on my own) eric and it is not best for patient's.

PS: Flea, please keep on blogging for those of us who have not yet been through the whole process. It is enlightening.
 

sorry quiet not quite
 

I think Dr. Flea is taking little risk except for possibly revealing strategy. The idea that plaintiff would try to introduce something about the blog during the trial is remote and likely to backfire. The only two ways would be to get a court order for Dr. Flea's identity to be revealed or to ask him directly. I think the risk of delaying the trial to get the court order and/or the negative impression of invading Dr. Flea's privacy (by asking him directly) would preclude either option. On the other hand, she can read and digest Dr. Flea's musings to see if they give her any help on what lines of attack might work best. The other risk of attacking him with his blog is that it gives his side the opportunity to introduce stuff from it and Dr. Flea comes off very sympathetic in that context.
 

I also wish Dr. Flea were not blogging about this until after his trial. I have been afraid for awhile that this is going to come back and bite him.

He is admitting to being coached by his attorneys. I can promise you this is going to come up at his trial. If he answers that "no" he was not coached, and then that attorney produces copies of his posts, his credibility is shot to hell. I also think his identity is not well protected. Most people know the general location of where he practices at. With a trial coming up involving the death of a child, the other sides attorney is pretty inept if she doesn't know about his blog.
 

Elliott said...

I think Dr. Flea is taking little risk except for possibly revealing strategy.

Sadly, this wasn't the case. See . When you insult the jury and reveal trial strategy in a public forum, you are fair game on the stand.