 |
| Diane The Pink House On The Corner |
So The Defense submits their "expert witness" list, of which they have eleven (count em!) eleven paid "experts" all from different parts of the country....
From looking at this list, which includes a synopsis of the "experts'" planned testimony, one begins to see the tactic which The Defense will use to attack us, which looks basically like "fling mud everywhere, in every direction, and see where it sticks".
It looks like they plan to do all of the following:
- a) argue the nurses did nothing wrong
- b) argue it was the doctor's (who did the surgery) fault instead of the nurses
- c) argue that Bob's stroke was "acute" in "onset, nature and duration" so that even if the nurse had notified a doctor right away, it would not have made any difference
- d) argue that because Bob was on Social Security Disability prior to this stroke, he was in as bad of shape when he checked into the hospital as he is now
- e) argue that since Bob had neuropathy, plus is a cancer survivor and a stroke survivor, that his life expectancy is low, and he will be dead soon, so they shouldn't have to pay very much for his life care
- f) submit their own "life care plan" taking out everything they view as "not necessary" or "not their responsibility" because they will argue that Bob, because of his prior disability, already needed the 24/7 nursing care/medical care/medical equipment/etc. that he needs now.
Of course, all of the above is complete BS.
And, if you ask me, it's all very mind boggling: as it seems they first say the nurses are not guilty, and then, admit they are. I mean, if the nurses are "not guilty" why are they even talking about paying some of the cost of Bob's care? Or having someone testify that the stroke was "so acute" it wouldn't have mattered when the nurse notified the doctor?
Which makes me wonder what a jury will think?
Point B is especially telling of just what kind of corporation/hospital we are dealing with -- that they actually plan to throw their own surgeon under the bus. And this is a award-winning surgeon who has been affiliated with their hospital for over 30 years (who also serves on the hospital's Board of Directors). And, if they actually convince a jury to accept this theory, i.e. that the doctor is responsible not the hospital -- we won't see one dime. As we are not suing the surgeon, but the hospital....
All I can say is: jeepers. I know we have a strong case, but it looks like we're in for a nasty fight.
And it makes me sick to think that this health care provider (i.e. hospital) would treat one of their patients this way. Whatever happened to the "care" part of "health care"?
See the original article:
in
No comments:
Post a Comment