Malpractice plaintiff wins case, wants more

Apparently, a record judgment wasn’t enough:

A Kane County jury recently awarded $1.3 million in a malpractice case against Sherman Hospital in Elgin.
Lawyers said was it was a record-high verdict for this type of case in Kane County, but soon the plaintiff may be asking for much more.

Comments

Anonymous
The size of the award relative to others doesn’t mean much – what matters is it’s size in relation to the damages.
Anonymous
Yes, but…
He’s had his bite at the apple. If everyone kept going back to court until they got the verdict they want, cases would drag on into perpetuity.
Anonymous
well, the question is would Kevinmd–or anyother anti-patient doctor who likes to post here–would take 1.25 million in exchange for removal of their sexual organs . . . . Any takers? If not, you’re all hypocrites and deserve to have your sexual organs removed.
Rich
Wait a minute –
This was heard by a Jury and they decided the value of the damages. Isn’t that what you all say is needed? Isn’t that why you oppose health courts, tort reform, etc.?
Now this jury did something that the plaintiff, and the above commentor, did not like, so suddenly it’s not such a good system after all.
Did the above commentor see all the evidence? read all of the medical records, and court transcripts? How can s/he deicde that his/her value judgement is better than the juries?
Should the jurors have their sexual organs removed as well?
Hypocrisy, indeed.
Anonymous
“Yes, but…
He’s had his bite at the apple. If everyone kept going back to court until they got the verdict they want, cases would drag on into perpetuity.”
Defendants appeal all the time and no one seems too incensed. What’s wrong with Plaintiffs doing it?
Anonymous
Anon 1:05 PM, defendants usually appeal when they lose. Ditto for plaintiffs. The operative word here being “lose.”
In this case we’re not talking about the behavior of plaintiffs and defendants per se, it’s about the behavior of winners and losers.
If you win your case, regardless of whether you’re the plaintiff or the defendant, logic says you would leave well enough alone and not try to push your luck. I mean, what’s next? Mega-victory? Mega-uber-victory? Mega-uber-hyper-victory squared by five?
I’ve heard of sore losers but this is one of the few times I’ve seen someone be disgruntled with winning their case on the grounds they didn’t win enough.
Anonymous
Defendants appeal all the time even if the award was less than they thought it should be. And they appeal when they win but they lose on their counterclaim. If you have even a little knowledge of litigation you know this.
If your damages would seem to dictate a higher award, and you don’t get it, how have you “won”? Her medical bills may be $2 million for all we know.
Anonymous
One of two things has happened: either the plaintiff could not make a compelling case at trial justifying a higher award or the plaintiff’s attorney failed in some significant way to represent his client’s interests.
They “won” their case in that they were granted an award. Plaintiff’s counsel gets his take, probably a good amount. But just having “won” does not entitle the plaintiff to name whatever award she wanted, no matter how severe her medical problems. Even prevailing in a case isn’t an entitlement to unlimited trips to the ATM machine. Didn’t her lawyer explain that to her?
I hope he has explained to his client that her award could be ultimately reduced on retrial. And I wonder, does plaintiff’s counsel get a larger cut of the award on retrial or appeal?
Anonymous
Her medical bills may be $2 million for all we know.
We don’t know. But you can bet the jury does.
Anonymous
It’s amazing how the jury isn’t a bunch of uneducated morons when they rule in a way that the plaintiff doesn’t like. When a doctor loses, you’re never so sanguine about that he didn’t make a compelling case at trial or his attorney failed. What’s funny is that if she hadn’t appealed, you’d all be decrying this verdict as a “jackpot” and you’d literally no know more than you do now.
Appeals are standard stuff for both sides. Again, if you know anything about litigation, this is not surprising or that out of the ordinary.
Anonymous
It’s amazing how the jury isn’t a bunch of uneducated morons when they rule in a way that the plaintiff doesn’t like.
And it’s amazing how idiotic they are when they rule in a way that they plaintiff (or his attorney) doesn’t like.
I guess the lawyers are just as intellectually dishonest as the doctors.
Again, if you know anything about medicine, you’d know that bad outcomes were not surprising or that out of the ordinary.
Anonymous
“And it’s amazing how idiotic they are when they rule in a way that they plaintiff (or his attorney) doesn’t like.”
Point me to where anyone said they were idiotic? Is this where you make up stuff to bolster your feeble claims?
“Again, if you know anything about medicine, you’d know that bad outcomes were not surprising or that out of the ordinary.”
Who is disputing that?
Anonymous
This is ridiculous – point to where anyone said the jury is “a bunch of uneducated morons.” It’s not here in this thread or in the article, but you wrote it and did not back it up or provide a citation either. The very nature of the appeal suggests that the plaintiffs attorney believes the jury made a -big- mistake, but excuse me from drawing any conclusions from the facts.

Malpractice plaintiff wins case, wants more

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels