Tuesday, April 07, 2009

Michigan Court Lays Groundwork for Medical Collapse

Understanding that the right to sue is not the same thing as a victory in a lawsuit why in God's holy name would anyone choose a career in medicine knowing this? I actually have no problem at all with this ruling as long as all doctors are provided with a functional crystal ball (and training on the same so as to ensure faultless interpretations). Congratulations to the federal appeals court in Michigan, you have earned the coveted title of official MDOD fucksticks.

10 comments:

  1. Good holy avacados. Life as we know it has taken a u-turn. The ability to disseminate right from wrong, logic vs. illogic left the building right along with Elvis. Tax cheats can run our government and become CEOs of banks and the car industry. We're no longer a nation of greats, but a nation of finger pointers.

    Mars is looking pretty good about now.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Its even worse than you might think at first blush. If successful, this ruling could lay the groundwork for suits against ER doctors for any medical complications occurring in discharged patients, at any future time, on the basis of "not being stabilized under EMTALA". This ruling greatly expands a patient's right to sue. Malpractice insurance won't cover this, by the way.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anna - No not that one.1:04 PM, April 07, 2009

    Another reason to nationalize health care.

    Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This crap is why, in spite of how much I actually enjoy working with patients, I am very seriously considering using my MD to go into full-time research. It might pay less, but at least I won't have these kind of headaches.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are they doing it on purpose to help push our nation to nationalized health care? You know kind of sabotage?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Or could they have done it to sabotage EMTALA? I seriously doubt they didn't consider the political ramifications when they handed down the decision.

    ReplyDelete
  7. My magic 8-Ball says " Outlook not Good", the question I asked it?? Is there an elected or appointed official in the entire US that doesn't have their head so far up there ass that they are looking at the world thru shit colored lenses???

    ReplyDelete
  8. From the article, it's very difficult to ascertain all of the facts. However, from what little is revealed in said article, i would have to agree with Providence that the Iron estate did not have standing to sue in federal court. There are very narrow parameters for a federal suit, and I just dont see them here. That being said, Providence would have gotten sued one way or the other. If they held the patient against his will they could be sued for false imprisonment and if they are a public hospital they could have been sued for a constitutional violation.

    Lastly, it would be difficult to foresee such an act by the patient and under the law, it is all about foreseeability. The federal judge in this case was simply dead wrong (no pun).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hello,

    My Name is Belinda. I think your web site gives great news on current healthcare market. As i am also into healthcare research. Its a good site with lots of information. Keep the good work on.

    I will definitely bookmark your web site for my research work. You may also kindly visit my web site blog related to healthcare industry that is http://newsonheath.blogspot.com and i would appreciate if you could kindly have a look at my blog too. Its updated on a daily basis

    Thanks & Regards,
    Belinda

    ReplyDelete
  10. If they held the patient against his will they could be sued for false imprisonmentYou need to brush up on the law there. A patient certainly can be held against his will, legally, by a medical facility under certain circumstances. I don't know if it was appropriate in this case, but you are missing some data in your legal education.

    This lawsuit is utterly ridiculous. Suppose I go to the Emergency Room because my chest hurts and it feels like there are bugs under my skin, the ER treats me and lets me go, and 10 days later, a dog bites me. Should the hospital be held responsible for not keeping me safe from the dog bite?

    ReplyDelete

ALL SPAM AND GRATUITOUS LINK POSTINGS WILL BE IMMEDIATELY DELETED.