Anonymous wrote:TBH, this isn’t actual John’s Hopkins. It’s All Children’s in Florida, which was purchased by Hopkins in 2013ish. It is owned by Hopkins, but 1000% not equivalent to Hopkins in terms of research or doctor quality.

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.

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.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the documentary. What a hearbreaking story. Yes, I understand CPS having to investigate. But two doctors who had treated Maya collaborated the mother's story of the diagnosis and recommended treatment. But Johns Hopkins didn't agree. During the investigation, the Kowalski's lawyers discovered that the doctors at Johns Hopkins did treat Maya with the same medicine her original doctor had prescribed - so they must have agreed with the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and knew that the course of treatment worked. I normally don't agree with suing, but in this case it was 100% warranted.

More than that, the hospital actually billed her insurance under the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. There was never any alternative diagnosis other than Munchausen by proxy which obviously got ruled out pretty quick as she was still sick despite total separation from the family. The professional conduct of the medical doctors involved was sick as f&ck too. They celebrated the suicide of her Mother.

The is pretty commonplace. They billed under the working diagnosis. The hospital is going to bill the patient’s insurance no matter what, with or without an official diagnosis.

Often times a patient begins treatment under one working diagnosis, but then a lab result comes in that forces a change in the diagnosis - the hospital still gets paid for what it did under the working diagnosis.

In this case, JH billed under the working diagnosis. Even while exploring other options. I feel like this is common practice.

Since they failed to diagnose any other issue, that implies they shouldn't have been paid and pay the family for damages, which the court is now telling them to do.

Her treatment was experimental. And extreme.

So? It worked. JHU failed to come up with anything else. So it pays the price.

Did it work? She improved over time, which is not uncommon for her diagnosis and for many diagnoses. Maybe the treatment was just painful without helping?

Point being that JHU was wrong. Period, end of story. At no time were they right. In the process they condoned physical abuse of a child and inflicted psychological harm. So they have to pay. Pretty simple

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the documentary. What a hearbreaking story. Yes, I understand CPS having to investigate. But two doctors who had treated Maya collaborated the mother's story of the diagnosis and recommended treatment. But Johns Hopkins didn't agree. During the investigation, the Kowalski's lawyers discovered that the doctors at Johns Hopkins did treat Maya with the same medicine her original doctor had prescribed - so they must have agreed with the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and knew that the course of treatment worked. I normally don't agree with suing, but in this case it was 100% warranted.

More than that, the hospital actually billed her insurance under the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. There was never any alternative diagnosis other than Munchausen by proxy which obviously got ruled out pretty quick as she was still sick despite total separation from the family. The professional conduct of the medical doctors involved was sick as f&ck too. They celebrated the suicide of her Mother.

The is pretty commonplace. They billed under the working diagnosis. The hospital is going to bill the patient’s insurance no matter what, with or without an official diagnosis.

Often times a patient begins treatment under one working diagnosis, but then a lab result comes in that forces a change in the diagnosis - the hospital still gets paid for what it did under the working diagnosis.

In this case, JH billed under the working diagnosis. Even while exploring other options. I feel like this is common practice.

Since they failed to diagnose any other issue, that implies they shouldn't have been paid and pay the family for damages, which the court is now telling them to do.

Her treatment was experimental. And extreme.

So? It worked. JHU failed to come up with anything else. So it pays the price.

Did it work? She improved over time, which is not uncommon for her diagnosis and for many diagnoses. Maybe the treatment was just painful without helping?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the documentary. What a hearbreaking story. Yes, I understand CPS having to investigate. But two doctors who had treated Maya collaborated the mother's story of the diagnosis and recommended treatment. But Johns Hopkins didn't agree. During the investigation, the Kowalski's lawyers discovered that the doctors at Johns Hopkins did treat Maya with the same medicine her original doctor had prescribed - so they must have agreed with the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and knew that the course of treatment worked. I normally don't agree with suing, but in this case it was 100% warranted.

More than that, the hospital actually billed her insurance under the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. There was never any alternative diagnosis other than Munchausen by proxy which obviously got ruled out pretty quick as she was still sick despite total separation from the family. The professional conduct of the medical doctors involved was sick as f&ck too. They celebrated the suicide of her Mother.

The is pretty commonplace. They billed under the working diagnosis. The hospital is going to bill the patient’s insurance no matter what, with or without an official diagnosis.

Often times a patient begins treatment under one working diagnosis, but then a lab result comes in that forces a change in the diagnosis - the hospital still gets paid for what it did under the working diagnosis.

In this case, JH billed under the working diagnosis. Even while exploring other options. I feel like this is common practice.

Since they failed to diagnose any other issue, that implies they shouldn't have been paid and pay the family for damages, which the court is now telling them to do.

Her treatment was experimental. And extreme.

So? It worked. JHU failed to come up with anything else. So it pays the price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the documentary. What a hearbreaking story. Yes, I understand CPS having to investigate. But two doctors who had treated Maya collaborated the mother's story of the diagnosis and recommended treatment. But Johns Hopkins didn't agree. During the investigation, the Kowalski's lawyers discovered that the doctors at Johns Hopkins did treat Maya with the same medicine her original doctor had prescribed - so they must have agreed with the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and knew that the course of treatment worked. I normally don't agree with suing, but in this case it was 100% warranted.

More than that, the hospital actually billed her insurance under the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. There was never any alternative diagnosis other than Munchausen by proxy which obviously got ruled out pretty quick as she was still sick despite total separation from the family. The professional conduct of the medical doctors involved was sick as f&ck too. They celebrated the suicide of her Mother.

The is pretty commonplace. They billed under the working diagnosis. The hospital is going to bill the patient’s insurance no matter what, with or without an official diagnosis.

Often times a patient begins treatment under one working diagnosis, but then a lab result comes in that forces a change in the diagnosis - the hospital still gets paid for what it did under the working diagnosis.

In this case, JH billed under the working diagnosis. Even while exploring other options. I feel like this is common practice.

Since they failed to diagnose any other issue, that implies they shouldn't have been paid and pay the family for damages, which the court is now telling them to do.

Her treatment was experimental. And extreme.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the documentary. What a hearbreaking story. Yes, I understand CPS having to investigate. But two doctors who had treated Maya collaborated the mother's story of the diagnosis and recommended treatment. But Johns Hopkins didn't agree. During the investigation, the Kowalski's lawyers discovered that the doctors at Johns Hopkins did treat Maya with the same medicine her original doctor had prescribed - so they must have agreed with the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and knew that the course of treatment worked. I normally don't agree with suing, but in this case it was 100% warranted.

More than that, the hospital actually billed her insurance under the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. There was never any alternative diagnosis other than Munchausen by proxy which obviously got ruled out pretty quick as she was still sick despite total separation from the family. The professional conduct of the medical doctors involved was sick as f&ck too. They celebrated the suicide of her Mother.

The is pretty commonplace. They billed under the working diagnosis. The hospital is going to bill the patient’s insurance no matter what, with or without an official diagnosis.

Often times a patient begins treatment under one working diagnosis, but then a lab result comes in that forces a change in the diagnosis - the hospital still gets paid for what it did under the working diagnosis.

In this case, JH billed under the working diagnosis. Even while exploring other options. I feel like this is common practice.

Since they failed to diagnose any other issue, that implies they shouldn't have been paid and pay the family for damages, which the court is now telling them to do.

Anonymous wrote:you got issues OP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just watched the documentary. What a hearbreaking story. Yes, I understand CPS having to investigate. But two doctors who had treated Maya collaborated the mother's story of the diagnosis and recommended treatment. But Johns Hopkins didn't agree. During the investigation, the Kowalski's lawyers discovered that the doctors at Johns Hopkins did treat Maya with the same medicine her original doctor had prescribed - so they must have agreed with the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome and knew that the course of treatment worked. I normally don't agree with suing, but in this case it was 100% warranted.

More than that, the hospital actually billed her insurance under the diagnosis of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome. There was never any alternative diagnosis other than Munchausen by proxy which obviously got ruled out pretty quick as she was still sick despite total separation from the family. The professional conduct of the medical doctors involved was sick as f&ck too. They celebrated the suicide of her Mother.

The is pretty commonplace. They billed under the working diagnosis. The hospital is going to bill the patient’s insurance no matter what, with or without an official diagnosis.

Often times a patient begins treatment under one working diagnosis, but then a lab result comes in that forces a change in the diagnosis - the hospital still gets paid for what it did under the working diagnosis.

In this case, JH billed under the working diagnosis. Even while exploring other options. I feel like this is common practice.