Notre Dame head coach Charlie Weis is back on the stand, after a mistrial ended his first malpractice suit.
The defense alleges that Weis wanted to rush through the complicated operation:
Ferguson said he also couldn’t believe Weis, 51, now head coach of the University of Notre Dame Fighting Irish, was sitting before him in 2002 arranging to have a major operation in a matter of days – a surgery he’d not even told his wife Maura about.
Related posts:
- Charlie Weis takes the stand
- Charlie Weis’ malpractice trial
- Notre Dame coach Charlie Weis’ malpractice lawsuit
- Charlie Weis takes losing badly
- A juror faints, the defendants rush to help: A mistrial in the Charlie Weis case
- Charlie Weis: Malpractice trial reactions
- The Charlie Weis malpractice trial
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 11 comments }
simple message – do NOT accept as patients those who are wealthy and/or famous, because they will always have unrealistic expectations, and feel that their societal status magically imparts superior medical knowledge upon them.
Maybe Tom Brady can testify again…smoke and mirrors part 2.
Maybe Tom will bring Michael Vick with him!
Why would Michael Vick testify? Was he around Weis on a daily basis more than just about anyone else and able to observe the effects on Weis both before and after like Brady was?
anon 9:51 :
Do you read the sports pages?
Man, it was a check, already.
There will be no intelligent lessons to be learned from this legal circus.
This case is not a circus. It’s a typical malpractice case. It’s only newsworthy becuase the plaintiff happens to be famous. Which is not really his fault.
Please. Do you think the Patriot bench warmer that nobody knows will testify on charlie W’s behalf…no. How about a ND upperclassman? …no. Why? because nobody knows them. Smoke and mirrors
How is this a defense???? This is a profession, not a restaurant. If the surgeon thinks the surgery inadvisable on any grounds, including simply that he doesn’t think the patient has really given it fair consideration and doesn’t really understand the risks, then he shouldn’t do the surgery.
It is boneheaded to do a surgery on someone because they are insisting when you aren’t comfortable that they know what they are doing. I have seen a number of surgeons do this. Most surgeons have better sense, but some seem oblivious to the need for real informed consent, not just a consent form, to minimize litigation in the event of poor outcomes.
Part of being a professional is saying no to the patients desires and no to your own finacial interests –both are trumped by medical judgement.
“Please. Do you think the Patriot bench warmer that nobody knows will testify on charlie W’s behalf…no. How about a ND upperclassman? …no. Why? because nobody knows them. Smoke and mirrors”
I don’t know – the paper hasn’t listed all the witnesses, the Patriot backup may well do so. It’s doubtful anyone from ND will since he worked for the Patriots at the time, or at least just before the surgery. A ND player wouldn’t have that insight. Again, why is it surprising to you that the one person Weis spent most of every day with outside his wife would testify?
Think before you type.
“Again, why is it surprising to you that the one person Weis spent most of every day with outside his wife would testify?
Think before you type.”
Maybe because Charlie Weis spent most every day with many members of the NE staff as Head Coach. They were not asked to testify…why not? because they were not a famous NE quarterback that is a household name that EVERYONE in the boston area would recognize (and like/believe). Smoke and mirrors part #2.
PS: Maybe the one who should think before they type is you CJD.
Comments on this entry are closed.