The Kowalski v. Johns Hopkins verdict is a legal travest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,

You are being incredibly insensitive and hurtful to the victims, and you are enabling the perpetrators.

I say this as a scientist and the spouse of a doctor. My husband knows what malpractice looks like in a hospital setting and he'd be the first to tell you that Johns Hopkins deserved to be sued. Stop focusing on the amount of money, and focus on who is responsible for the trauma this family endured.

Shame on you.

OP here. When your husband or his workplace gets sued because some patient didn't like what he did or considered it malpractice, come back and tell me if he still thinks Johns Hopkins deserved to be sued. Would you like it if as a scientist one of your clients complained about you or sued you in court.

Ahh, I see. Your husband is a bad doctor who lost a large malpractice suit. You really have to screw up to lose in a malpractice case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,

You are being incredibly insensitive and hurtful to the victims, and you are enabling the perpetrators.

I say this as a scientist and the spouse of a doctor. My husband knows what malpractice looks like in a hospital setting and he'd be the first to tell you that Johns Hopkins deserved to be sued. Stop focusing on the amount of money, and focus on who is responsible for the trauma this family endured.

Shame on you.

OP here. When your husband or his workplace gets sued because some patient didn't like what he did or considered it malpractice, come back and tell me if he still thinks Johns Hopkins deserved to be sued. Would you like it if as a scientist one of your clients complained about you or sued you in court.

Ahh, I see. Your husband is a bad doctor who lost a large malpractice suit. You really have to screw up to lose in a malpractice case.

OP here. Neither I nor my husband are doctors. I just dislike the lawsuit culture in America. Just look what my sister did when she didn't like the school the district was placing my niece in. Teachers, administrators, districts, etc. already have to deal with parents who demand this and that. I'm not a teacher and neither is my husband but I can't imagine what it's like being a teacher in America having to deal with so many entitled parents. I've already had to deal with entitled people when working in customer service and it sucked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Whatever they got they deserved 3x more. The hospital’s conduct in that case was atrocious.

Are you basing your opinion on the TV show/documentary? Are you aware that documentaries are not 100% objective and unbiased? Or 100% accurate?

You go first. What are YOU basing your opinion on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you need to better educate yourself on these issues. Payments for medical negligence cases comprise roughly 2.4 percent of all healthcare costs. Yet, preventable medical errors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease, cancer, and Covid.

When a family suffers a medical negligence event, the future costs can be huge. Why should families bear the burden of the injuries? What if a person is a paraplegic after negligence? What if a person can never work again and support their family? What if a child needs a lifetime of medical care? A simple medical board complaint won’t do anything to help victims and make up for the losses.

Medical malpractice cases make our healthcare system safer. They are the only true check on the system.

Rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums are the result of the insurance greed and other systemic issues in healthcare.

OP here. To my knowledge, hospitals have very strict protocols about preventing medical errors. For instance when nurses give medications, they need to check the 5 rights first. Right[b] patient, [b]right[b] medication, [b]right[b] time, [b]right[b] dose and [b]right[b] route. All those prevention protocols are required by law. Medical malpractice cases don't make our healthcare system safer. They make people afraid to become doctors because they are afraid of being sued.

The other thing is people sue for plenty of other ridiculus reasons. A couple of years, my sister decided the school the district wanted to place my niece was not a good school. My niece goes to a private state-funded school for autistic kids. While she didn't sue she did get an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. Who is she, a non-educator, to decide that a school still allowed to be open is not a good school?

I googled my sister's name and found a YouTube video of her in a zoom meeting hosted by a local non-profit. She told her story about getting an attorney and encourages other parents to "advocate" for their child. "Advocate" in this context means to disregard the advice of trained professionals and push for what you want until the school or district provides it. Imagine if diabetics told their doctors "well no doc, I know my body best and I'm telling you this dose of insulin is not right for me." They'd all be dead. Yet in the special needs parent world this behavior is often encouraged and praised. I also found out that federal law requires schools to pay for attorney fees for special-ed related cases if the parents win. I don't want my tax dollars to go to parents who [b]choose to hire an attorney to get what they want.

OP--so you're angry about the lawsuit because of your sister???
First of all, a school that is "still allowed to be open" is not necessarily one that is able to provide the services a kid with autism needs. And the legal standard (set by the Supreme Court) in special ed cases is not that parents get what they want, but that the child had services that provide educational benefit. As for judgments awarding legal expenses, this is a common outcome when one party prevails in a lawsuit of any kind. Also, special ed cases generally require the use of expert testimony--which is very expensive--but parents are NOT reimbursed for those costs.

I've been reading doctor's reactions to the Kowalski case. Many of them do believe that the evidence does not fit the illness Maya has been claimed to have and find the medical care she received--including the mom crushing oral Ketamine tablets and administering them via IV at home (mom was a nurse) very suspect. They also believe that the family was treated horribly by the hospital.

Not all bad doctors are prevented from practicing, even when their colleagues know they are bad doctors.

The real problem with med malpractice system is that most of the time, people who have a bad result from medical care--even when the doctor is at fault--actually cannot find a lawyer to sue. The amount of damages attainable has to be very large due to the expense of such lawsuits. And of suits that go to trial, most of the time (80%) the doctors win anyway. Meanwhile, someone can be terribly injured because something went wrong but there is no compensation at all because what went wrong is not clear medical error and lawyers don't think the case is highly winnable. And if someone suffered from poor medical care but didn't suffer "enough" no lawyer will file. Unless, of course, the person already has hundreds of thousands of dollars they can spare to go after the provider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

Most medical boards don't do diddly squat

OP here. You are 100% wrong. Every state, Washington DC and US territory has a medical board. They all take action when a doctor or hospital is unreasonably dangerous. There is no need to sue hospitals, but unfortunately many Americans are money hungry which I understand because inflation and the cost of living is expensive.

According to many doctors, medical boards aren't as great as you would think. https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/local-news/i-team-investigates/florida-plastic-surgeon-arrested-for-meth-possession-continues-to-practice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you need to better educate yourself on these issues. Payments for medical negligence cases comprise roughly 2.4 percent of all healthcare costs. Yet, preventable medical errors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease, cancer, and Covid.

When a family suffers a medical negligence event, the future costs can be huge. Why should families bear the burden of the injuries? What if a person is a paraplegic after negligence? What if a person can never work again and support their family? What if a child needs a lifetime of medical care? A simple medical board complaint won’t do anything to help victims and make up for the losses.

Medical malpractice cases make our healthcare system safer. They are the only true check on the system.

Rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums are the result of the insurance greed and other systemic issues in healthcare.

OP here. To my knowledge, hospitals have very strict protocols about preventing medical errors. For instance when nurses give medications, they need to check the 5 rights first. Right[b] patient, [b]right[b] medication, [b]right[b] time, [b]right[b] dose and [b]right[b] route. All those prevention protocols are required by law. Medical malpractice cases don't make our healthcare system safer. They make people afraid to become doctors because they are afraid of being sued.

The other thing is people sue for plenty of other ridiculus reasons. A couple of years, my sister decided the school the district wanted to place my niece was not a good school. My niece goes to a private state-funded school for autistic kids. While she didn't sue she did get an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. Who is she, a non-educator, to decide that a school still allowed to be open is not a good school?

I googled my sister's name and found a YouTube video of her in a zoom meeting hosted by a local non-profit. She told her story about getting an attorney and encourages other parents to "advocate" for their child. "Advocate" in this context means to disregard the advice of trained professionals and push for what you want until the school or district provides it. Imagine if diabetics told their doctors "well no doc, I know my body best and I'm telling you this dose of insulin is not right for me." They'd all be dead. Yet in the special needs parent world this behavior is often encouraged and praised. I also found out that federal law requires schools to pay for attorney fees for special-ed related cases if the parents win. I don't want my tax dollars to go to parents who [b]choose to hire an attorney to get what they want.

OP--so you're angry about the lawsuit because of your sister???
First of all, a school that is "still allowed to be open" is not necessarily one that is able to provide the services a kid with autism needs. And the legal standard (set by the Supreme Court) in special ed cases is not that parents get what they want, but that the child had services that provide educational benefit. As for judgments awarding legal expenses, this is a common outcome when one party prevails in a lawsuit of any kind. Also, special ed cases generally require the use of expert testimony--which is very expensive--but parents are NOT reimbursed for those costs.

I've been reading doctor's reactions to the Kowalski case. Many of them do believe that the evidence does not fit the illness Maya has been claimed to have and find the medical care she received--including the mom crushing oral Ketamine tablets and administering them via IV at home (mom was a nurse) very suspect. They also believe that the family was treated horribly by the hospital.

Not all bad doctors are prevented from practicing, even when their colleagues know they are bad doctors.

The real problem with med malpractice system is that most of the time, people who have a bad result from medical care--even when the doctor is at fault--actually cannot find a lawyer to sue. The amount of damages attainable has to be very large due to the expense of such lawsuits. And of suits that go to trial, most of the time (80%) the doctors win anyway. Meanwhile, someone can be terribly injured because something went wrong but there is no compensation at all because what went wrong is not clear medical error and lawyers don't think the case is highly winnable. And if someone suffered from poor medical care but didn't suffer "enough" no lawyer will file. Unless, of course, the person already has hundreds of thousands of dollars they can spare to go after the provider.

OP here. The school the district wanted to put my niece in provides services for kids with autism. My sister just decided it was a bad school and demanded the district's place my niece into a different school, even going so far as to getting an attorney to threaten the district when they wouldn't comply. But who is she to decide that school is a bad school?

[Anonymous]

There is a pediatrician at our DMV practice who told me ADHD does not exist. On another occasion, she misdiagnosed my kid’s rash. I try to avoid her as much as possible. Some doctors don’t “believe” in vaccines. All are still practicing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you need to better educate yourself on these issues. Payments for medical negligence cases comprise roughly 2.4 percent of all healthcare costs. Yet, preventable medical errors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease, cancer, and Covid.

When a family suffers a medical negligence event, the future costs can be huge. Why should families bear the burden of the injuries? What if a person is a paraplegic after negligence? What if a person can never work again and support their family? What if a child needs a lifetime of medical care? A simple medical board complaint won’t do anything to help victims and make up for the losses.

Medical malpractice cases make our healthcare system safer. They are the only true check on the system.

Rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums are the result of the insurance greed and other systemic issues in healthcare.

OP here. To my knowledge, hospitals have very strict protocols about preventing medical errors. For instance when nurses give medications, they need to check the 5 rights first. Right[b] patient, [b]right[b] medication, [b]right[b] time, [b]right[b] dose and [b]right[b] route. All those prevention protocols are required by law. Medical malpractice cases don't make our healthcare system safer. They make people afraid to become doctors because they are afraid of being sued.

The other thing is people sue for plenty of other ridiculus reasons. A couple of years, my sister decided the school the district wanted to place my niece was not a good school. My niece goes to a private state-funded school for autistic kids. While she didn't sue she did get an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. Who is she, a non-educator, to decide that a school still allowed to be open is not a good school?

I googled my sister's name and found a YouTube video of her in a zoom meeting hosted by a local non-profit. She told her story about getting an attorney and encourages other parents to "advocate" for their child. "Advocate" in this context means to disregard the advice of trained professionals and push for what you want until the school or district provides it. Imagine if diabetics told their doctors "well no doc, I know my body best and I'm telling you this dose of insulin is not right for me." They'd all be dead. Yet in the special needs parent world this behavior is often encouraged and praised. I also found out that federal law requires schools to pay for attorney fees for special-ed related cases if the parents win. I don't want my tax dollars to go to parents who [b]choose to hire an attorney to get what they want.

OP--so you're angry about the lawsuit because of your sister???
First of all, a school that is "still allowed to be open" is not necessarily one that is able to provide the services a kid with autism needs. And the legal standard (set by the Supreme Court) in special ed cases is not that parents get what they want, but that the child had services that provide educational benefit. As for judgments awarding legal expenses, this is a common outcome when one party prevails in a lawsuit of any kind. Also, special ed cases generally require the use of expert testimony--which is very expensive--but parents are NOT reimbursed for those costs.

I've been reading doctor's reactions to the Kowalski case. Many of them do believe that the evidence does not fit the illness Maya has been claimed to have and find the medical care she received--including the mom crushing oral Ketamine tablets and administering them via IV at home (mom was a nurse) very suspect. They also believe that the family was treated horribly by the hospital.

Not all bad doctors are prevented from practicing, even when their colleagues know they are bad doctors.

The real problem with med malpractice system is that most of the time, people who have a bad result from medical care--even when the doctor is at fault--actually cannot find a lawyer to sue. The amount of damages attainable has to be very large due to the expense of such lawsuits. And of suits that go to trial, most of the time (80%) the doctors win anyway. Meanwhile, someone can be terribly injured because something went wrong but there is no compensation at all because what went wrong is not clear medical error and lawyers don't think the case is highly winnable. And if someone suffered from poor medical care but didn't suffer "enough" no lawyer will file. Unless, of course, the person already has hundreds of thousands of dollars they can spare to go after the provider.

OP here. The school the district wanted to put my niece in provides services for kids with autism. My sister just decided it was a bad school and demanded the district's place my niece into a different school, even going so far as to getting an attorney to threaten the district when they wouldn't comply. But who is she to decide that school is a bad school?

Your sister knows her child’s needs better than you do. She must be right because it's pretty much impossible to get a school district to do anything without reasonable grounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you need to better educate yourself on these issues. Payments for medical negligence cases comprise roughly 2.4 percent of all healthcare costs. Yet, preventable medical errors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease, cancer, and Covid.

When a family suffers a medical negligence event, the future costs can be huge. Why should families bear the burden of the injuries? What if a person is a paraplegic after negligence? What if a person can never work again and support their family? What if a child needs a lifetime of medical care? A simple medical board complaint won’t do anything to help victims and make up for the losses.

Medical malpractice cases make our healthcare system safer. They are the only true check on the system.

Rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums are the result of the insurance greed and other systemic issues in healthcare.

OP here. To my knowledge, hospitals have very strict protocols about preventing medical errors. For instance when nurses give medications, they need to check the 5 rights first. Right[b] patient, [b]right[b] medication, [b]right[b] time, [b]right[b] dose and [b]right[b] route. All those prevention protocols are required by law. Medical malpractice cases don't make our healthcare system safer. They make people afraid to become doctors because they are afraid of being sued.

The other thing is people sue for plenty of other ridiculus reasons. A couple of years, my sister decided the school the district wanted to place my niece was not a good school. My niece goes to a private state-funded school for autistic kids. While she didn't sue she did get an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. Who is she, a non-educator, to decide that a school still allowed to be open is not a good school?

I googled my sister's name and found a YouTube video of her in a zoom meeting hosted by a local non-profit. She told her story about getting an attorney and encourages other parents to "advocate" for their child. "Advocate" in this context means to disregard the advice of trained professionals and push for what you want until the school or district provides it. Imagine if diabetics told their doctors "well no doc, I know my body best and I'm telling you this dose of insulin is not right for me." They'd all be dead. Yet in the special needs parent world this behavior is often encouraged and praised. I also found out that federal law requires schools to pay for attorney fees for special-ed related cases if the parents win. I don't want my tax dollars to go to parents who [b]choose to hire an attorney to get what they want.

OP--so you're angry about the lawsuit because of your sister???
First of all, a school that is "still allowed to be open" is not necessarily one that is able to provide the services a kid with autism needs. And the legal standard (set by the Supreme Court) in special ed cases is not that parents get what they want, but that the child had services that provide educational benefit. As for judgments awarding legal expenses, this is a common outcome when one party prevails in a lawsuit of any kind. Also, special ed cases generally require the use of expert testimony--which is very expensive--but parents are NOT reimbursed for those costs.

I've been reading doctor's reactions to the Kowalski case. Many of them do believe that the evidence does not fit the illness Maya has been claimed to have and find the medical care she received--including the mom crushing oral Ketamine tablets and administering them via IV at home (mom was a nurse) very suspect. They also believe that the family was treated horribly by the hospital.

Not all bad doctors are prevented from practicing, even when their colleagues know they are bad doctors.

The real problem with med malpractice system is that most of the time, people who have a bad result from medical care--even when the doctor is at fault--actually cannot find a lawyer to sue. The amount of damages attainable has to be very large due to the expense of such lawsuits. And of suits that go to trial, most of the time (80%) the doctors win anyway. Meanwhile, someone can be terribly injured because something went wrong but there is no compensation at all because what went wrong is not clear medical error and lawyers don't think the case is highly winnable. And if someone suffered from poor medical care but didn't suffer "enough" no lawyer will file. Unless, of course, the person already has hundreds of thousands of dollars they can spare to go after the provider.

Call me surprised. My child was diagnosed with a very common childhood aliment (type I diabetes) - do you know how many months, INOVA Fairfax ER, specialists and doctors saw him before I had to take him to the ER and demand they test his blood sugar? Not a single doctor he saw caught it and INOVA Fairfax basically called me a bad mother for demanding they run bloodwork so they didn't.

Now for the second time in 2 years have a mystery condition that no doctor or specialist can diagnose. Thankfully my condition doesn't involve pain and involves very real consequences so they can't claim that it isn't happening. At this point the doctors just say there is nothing they can do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

Most medical boards don't do diddly squat

OP here. You are 100% wrong. Every state, Washington DC and US territory has a medical board. They all take action when a doctor or hospital is unreasonably dangerous. There is no need to sue hospitals, but unfortunately many Americans are money hungry which I understand because inflation and the cost of living is expensive.

You know absolutely nothing about either medical boards or malpractice. Every time you post you show how ignorant you are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, you need to better educate yourself on these issues. Payments for medical negligence cases comprise roughly 2.4 percent of all healthcare costs. Yet, preventable medical errors are the fourth leading cause of death in the US, after heart disease, cancer, and Covid.

When a family suffers a medical negligence event, the future costs can be huge. Why should families bear the burden of the injuries? What if a person is a paraplegic after negligence? What if a person can never work again and support their family? What if a child needs a lifetime of medical care? A simple medical board complaint won’t do anything to help victims and make up for the losses.

Medical malpractice cases make our healthcare system safer. They are the only true check on the system.

Rising healthcare costs and insurance premiums are the result of the insurance greed and other systemic issues in healthcare.

OP here. To my knowledge, hospitals have very strict protocols about preventing medical errors. For instance when nurses give medications, they need to check the 5 rights first. Right[b] patient, [b]right[b] medication, [b]right[b] time, [b]right[b] dose and [b]right[b] route. All those prevention protocols are required by law. Medical malpractice cases don't make our healthcare system safer. They make people afraid to become doctors because they are afraid of being sued.

The other thing is people sue for plenty of other ridiculus reasons. A couple of years, my sister decided the school the district wanted to place my niece was not a good school. My niece goes to a private state-funded school for autistic kids. While she didn't sue she did get an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. Who is she, a non-educator, to decide that a school still allowed to be open is not a good school?

I googled my sister's name and found a YouTube video of her in a zoom meeting hosted by a local non-profit. She told her story about getting an attorney and encourages other parents to "advocate" for their child. "Advocate" in this context means to disregard the advice of trained professionals and push for what you want until the school or district provides it. Imagine if diabetics told their doctors "well no doc, I know my body best and I'm telling you this dose of insulin is not right for me." They'd all be dead. Yet in the special needs parent world this behavior is often encouraged and praised. I also found out that federal law requires schools to pay for attorney fees for special-ed related cases if the parents win. I don't want my tax dollars to go to parents who [b]choose to hire an attorney to get what they want.

OP--so you're angry about the lawsuit because of your sister???
First of all, a school that is "still allowed to be open" is not necessarily one that is able to provide the services a kid with autism needs. And the legal standard (set by the Supreme Court) in special ed cases is not that parents get what they want, but that the child had services that provide educational benefit. As for judgments awarding legal expenses, this is a common outcome when one party prevails in a lawsuit of any kind. Also, special ed cases generally require the use of expert testimony--which is very expensive--but parents are NOT reimbursed for those costs.

I've been reading doctor's reactions to the Kowalski case. Many of them do believe that the evidence does not fit the illness Maya has been claimed to have and find the medical care she received--including the mom crushing oral Ketamine tablets and administering them via IV at home (mom was a nurse) very suspect. They also believe that the family was treated horribly by the hospital.

Not all bad doctors are prevented from practicing, even when their colleagues know they are bad doctors.

The real problem with med malpractice system is that most of the time, people who have a bad result from medical care--even when the doctor is at fault--actually cannot find a lawyer to sue. The amount of damages attainable has to be very large due to the expense of such lawsuits. And of suits that go to trial, most of the time (80%) the doctors win anyway. Meanwhile, someone can be terribly injured because something went wrong but there is no compensation at all because what went wrong is not clear medical error and lawyers don't think the case is highly winnable. And if someone suffered from poor medical care but didn't suffer "enough" no lawyer will file. Unless, of course, the person already has hundreds of thousands of dollars they can spare to go after the provider.

OP here. The school the district wanted to put my niece in provides services for kids with autism. My sister just decided it was a bad school and demanded the district's place my niece into a different school, even going so far as to getting an attorney to threaten the district when they wouldn't comply. But who is she to decide that school is a bad school?

Clearly she was right. It is almost impossible to get a win like you claim your sister did.

I don’t know why you keep posting. You weaken your argument with every post you make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP,

You are being incredibly insensitive and hurtful to the victims, and you are enabling the perpetrators.

I say this as a scientist and the spouse of a doctor. My husband knows what malpractice looks like in a hospital setting and he'd be the first to tell you that Johns Hopkins deserved to be sued. Stop focusing on the amount of money, and focus on who is responsible for the trauma this family endured.

Shame on you.

OP here. When your husband or his workplace gets sued because some patient didn't like what he did or considered it malpractice, come back and tell me if he still thinks Johns Hopkins deserved to be sued. Would you like it if as a scientist one of your clients complained about you or sued you in court.

Ahh, I see. Your husband is a bad doctor who lost a large malpractice suit. You really have to screw up to lose in a malpractice case.

OP here. Neither I nor my husband are doctors. I just dislike the lawsuit culture in America. Just look what my sister did when she didn't like the school the district was placing my niece in. Teachers, administrators, districts, etc. already have to deal with parents who demand this and that. I'm not a teacher and neither is my husband but I can't imagine what it's like being a teacher in America having to deal with so many entitled parents. I've already had to deal with entitled people when working in customer service and it sucked.

It’s always so weird to see people who side with the abusers of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you got issues OP.

OP here. I'm the one who has issues, and not money hungry people who are seeking $211 million from a hospital or who use attorneys to bully school districts?

do you think the dead person would have made $211 million in their lifetime?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone has been following the "Take Care of Maya" trial, the jury awarded the Kowalskis a whooping 7 million against Johns Hopkins. This is such a legal travesty.

When I was in middle school in the early 2000s, my classmate lost her little brother. The entire class made cards that said sorry for your loss, etc. I overheard conversations between teachers and paraprofessionals. They said to each other "if I were the parents, I would sue the hospital" or something along those lines several times.

I do understand it's hard to lose a child, but that doesn't automatically mean the hospital is at fault. If you think the hospital indeed did something wrong, you should be filing a complaint with the state medical board, not suing. They will do an investigation and decide if the hospital is at fault and take appropriate action, including revoking licenses if necessary. There is absolutely no need to sue a hospital ever. It raises healthcare costs for others and of course malpractice insurance, so no one will want to become a doctor because they are afraid some crazy person will sue them.

This is one of the reasons we have a teacher shortage. A teacher does something a parent doesn't like, a parent raises hell left and right with the administration or even sue the district for millions. Just look at the Savanna Redding case. The parent sued after the school strip-searched on suspicion she has drugs. If they had not strip-searched her and someone died of the drugs another parent would sue the school. Damned of you do, damned if you don't.

And here a family got $7 million just because they don't like a licensed child abuse pediatrics specialist doctor claimed Beata had Munchausen's. Now parents with Munchausen's can get $7 million by claiming licensed Hippocratic sworn doctors are fraudsters.

My sister did this. She decided the school the district wanted to put my autistic niece in is a bad school, so she got an attorney to bully the district into placing my niece in a different school. She calls this "advocating" for her child. My parents are Polish just like the Kowalskis and adwokat means lawyer in Polish and other languages. The last thing you should be doing is suing others.

I don't think those are mutually exclusive. I am a hospital nurse and I agree that people are sue happy in the US. People use it as a threat all the time when they don't get what they want in the hospital. And it can be stressful for all involved on the receiving end. But--having worked in health care--I think you are naive about how hospitals handle bad or negligent health care providers. Ask most hospital nurses-they all know at least one surgeon they would never let touch a family member because they have messed up so many times. But the hospitals look the other way despite concerns being raised bc it costs them money. A lot of hospitals settle out of court. It is actually not as easy as people make it seem to sue--there needs to be evidence of harm and dereliction of duty.

OP here. If a surgeon is indeed messing up so many times that they shouldn't be practicing, then the hospital is required to fire the surgeon. Moreover, the state will investigate and take away their license if necessary. Hospitals are over-regulated as it is. If you couldn't do your job right, the state would take away your license too. That's how it works.

But that’s not how it works. the hospitals don’t fire them. You seriously think you know better than a nurse in the health system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:you got issues OP.

OP here. I'm the one who has issues, and not money hungry people who are seeking $211 million from a hospital or who use attorneys to bully school districts?

do you think the dead person would have made $211 million in their lifetime?

That should make it cheaper to experiment on the unemploymed. Sounds good to me. What could go wrong?