Elderly woman dies after Bakersfield nurse "refuses" to do CPR

[jclalor 12]

After spending the last two week getting certified as a CPR instructor, I found this story ironic and also how badly the press reported it. The policy of the facility was no CPR performed by staff, and the nurse may not have even been currently certified in CPR, as it was not required for the job. Start pumping on a 87 year old's brittle ribs and their going to break, and when it's discovered the nurse is not current in CPR, and she violated the facilities P&P's, and cracked ribs, she will not only be out of a job but also end up being sued.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0304-senior-dispatcher-20130304,0,43655.story

[Gravitymaster 0]

This is why tort reform should have been part of any healthcare reform legislation. But it wasn't because low-life lawyers would have had their Golden Ox gored and we can't have that.

[davjohns 1]

I've never exactly figured out what tort reform was needed. Care to share?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[Gravitymaster 0]

We could start with limiting the amount of money awarded by juries. I find it incredible that tens of millions are paid to the families of those who are injured or die because a doctor, without any finding of gross negligence, did what he thought was best, given a situation.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/07/16/prsa0716.htm

[davjohns 1]

I don't see where it says there was no finding of gross negligence. I agree that is a lot of money. But the article indicates it was based on what it will cost to take care of the child now that it has this doctor induced disability. Without more facts, that article isn't terribly helpful.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I've never exactly figured out what tort reform was needed. Care to share?

The cleanest easiest one would be looser pays

You loose, you pay all lawyers and court fees for BOTH sides

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

Judges actually have that option. It is usually reserved for cases where one side is clearly wrong. Afterall, why do you want to use it when the case was close? You have to be absolutely right before you can get a judge to decide between you? Those cases get settled before they reach a judge.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I don't see where it says there was no finding of gross negligence. I agree that is a lot of money. But the article indicates it was based on what it will cost to take care of the child now that it has this doctor induced disability. Without more facts, that article isn't terribly helpful.

It really does not matter if the case is warranted anymore

Because of the cost of it, many cases are easier to settle than litigate

Bottom feeding lawyers (I am posting to what I think is a limited small group who fit in the category) file just because they know they can get something regardless of the merits

So settling (IE paying) is more cost effective than going to court

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Judges actually have that option. It is usually reserved for cases where one side is clearly wrong. Afterall, why do you want to use it when the case was close? You have to be absolutely right before you can get a judge to decide between you? Those cases get settled before they reach a judge.

It needs to be the case all the time

There were law changes going through the states some years back

Looser pays and no fault auto insurance
The lawyer lobby stopped them both

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[davjohns 1]

When I was practicing, I have to tell you I didn't see that. Settlement is certainly part of the decision to file a case. The filing of the case puts pressure on to work something out. But it just isn't cost effective to file cases that can't win. Especially, in Medical Malpractice cases; the insurance companies will deny their own mother before admitting to wrongdoing no matter what the facts.

I'm sure there is abuse of the system. However, the cases I have seen held up as examples have turned out to be poor examples once you knew the facts. I remember reading about the Liebeck v. McDonald's case in law school. Everything I had heard about that case was a lie. Once you knew the facts, you wanted to give that woman lots of money.

I'm pretty comfortable trusting decisions to a jury of 12 that has more facts than the person hearing the stilted news report.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[wmw999 2,146]

I've always found it to be interesting that the same newspapers that are reviled for reporting skydiving situations inaccurately are unassailable sources of truth when it comes to reporting on legal cases.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[wmw999 2,146]

The vast majority of situations in America overwhelmingly favor the rich over the poor right now. I'm not sure that introducing yet another is the best way to keep the middle class alive.

I'd like to see more judges being able to dismiss clearly ridiculous cases early, so that it doesn't cost both parties a whole lot. Of course, I'd also like to see judges be able to award earlier sometimes in ridiculous cases, so that some companies' tactic of litigating until the plaintiff runs out of money or dies doesn't work as often.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

The vast majority of situations in America overwhelmingly favor the rich over the poor right now. I'm not sure that introducing yet another is the best way to keep the middle class alive.

I'd like to see more judges being able to dismiss clearly ridiculous cases early, so that it doesn't cost both parties a whole lot. Of course, I'd also like to see judges be able to award earlier sometimes in ridiculous cases, so that some companies' tactic of litigating until the plaintiff runs out of money or dies doesn't work as often.

Wendy P.

First off Wendy, I do not buy the rich poor points
I feel those are just left talking points

But to your dismissal comments. Heck ya!

If judges were not so liberal (I dont meant that in a political sense) with allowing cases to go through, we would not be having this talk

And it not a run out of money or die thing, it is a , its just cheaper to settle than to fight

Many times insurance carriers do that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[wmw999 2,146]

Quote

First off Wendy, I do not buy the rich poor points

Who gets better legal representation in criminal cases as a rule?

Who gets to go to better schools as a rule?

Who gets better food as a rule?

Who gets to play sports with all the equipment as a rule?

Who gets a bigger choice of universities as a rule?

Rich people. Yeah, the exceptional poor will nearly always get ahead, but they have to be exceptional to get ahead of average rich people. It's always been that way, it's not necessarily wrong, but we shouldn't, as a country and society, make it more so.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

First off Wendy, I do not buy the rich poor points

Who gets better legal representation in criminal cases as a rule?

Who gets to go to better schools as a rule?

Who gets better food as a rule?

Who gets to play sports with all the equipment as a rule?

Who gets a bigger choice of universities as a rule?

Rich people. Yeah, the exceptional poor will nearly always get ahead, but they have to be exceptional to get ahead of average rich people. It's always been that way, it's not necessarily wrong, but we shouldn't, as a country and society, make it more so.

Wendy P.

And looser pays tort reform would niether help nor hurt anyone

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[BillyVance 34]

The question that doesn't seem to have been answered here is: Did this 87 year old lady have Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order?

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The question that doesn't seem to have been answered here is: Did this 87 year old lady have Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order?

There are a lot of facts not in evidence, I think. I watched briefly a little piece no the morning news. That said the woman was in an independent living facility and that the staff do not, as a matter of policy, perform CPR on anybody there.

I was more surprised they did not have an AED close and convenient.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

I don't see where it says there was no finding of gross negligence. I agree that is a lot of money. But the article indicates it was based on what it will cost to take care of the child now that it has this doctor induced disability. Without more facts, that article isn't terribly helpful.

It really does not matter if the case is warranted anymore

Because of the cost of it, many cases are easier to settle than litigate

Bottom feeding lawyers (I am posting to what I think is a limited small group who fit in the category) file just because they know they can get something regardless of the merits

Around here you see their ads on the back cover of the Yellow Pages. In FL I notice they advertize on billboards along the roads.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kawisixer01 0]

I think what people are hinting at with tort reform is that we seem to have lost quality and affordability in our health care because of law suits. I've heard of wonderful doctors leaving practice or leaving the country because of our current situation. Doctors over test the hell out of every person who walks through the door "just to be safe" and cover their ass. We seem to forget that doctors are human and make mistakes. They are expected to make extremely rapid life dependent decisions in the blink of an eye with very limited information, and then we have the nerve to stand back and ridicule those decisions a year down the road in the comfort and quiet of a review board room. I see cases where a doctor in an ER receives someone on the brink of death, and outright saves that persons life, only to be sued two years later because the jerk who was saved now feels he got jipped because he can't feel his toe, or walks with a limp due to one very tiny error by the doctor in the rush to save this guys life. The whole thing is that it seems people are not grateful for anything a doctor does for them anymore, they expect perfection and sue like hell when they don't get it. When someone receives a huge payday against the medical community we all pay for it.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

I see cases...

Personally? Professionally? How?

[kawisixer01 0]

I read mass media, I am related to a doctor, I am close friends with multiple nurses. I don't literally experience with my own two eyes, but I consider when I read about something and talk personally with people in the field that I am "seeing" things in the sense. Interesting in all of the points I made in my post you would take issue with the use of one word and address it, rather the actual talking points of the post though.

[billvon 2,426]

>The cleanest easiest one would be looser pays

That would give lawyers incredible power. "You either settle NOW or we go to court, and loser pays. My client has fifty million in the bank; he can easily afford to lose. Can your family?"

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>The cleanest easiest one would be looser pays

That would give lawyers incredible power. "You either settle NOW or we go to court, and loser pays. My client has fifty million in the bank; he can easily afford to lose. Can your family?"

I have seen that arguement

It gives the poor more power if they know they have a winning case

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jclalor 12]

Quote

There are a lot of facts not in evidence, I think. I watched briefly a little piece no the morning news. That said the woman was in an independent living facility and that the staff do not, as a matter of policy, perform CPR on anybody there.

For some retirement place like this one, it's one of their selling points that they don't provide any medical services. Most people don't want to move into a "nursing" homes, and if they they think its just apartments for seniors it's an easier sale.

Quote

I was more surprised they did not have an AED close and convenient.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We could start with limiting the amount of money awarded by juries

I’m a trial lawyer in California that has both sued doctors and defended doctors. They have that here. It’s called the Medical Injury Compensation Recovery Act and was passed in 1975. It limited pain and suffering damages to $250,000.00, capped attorneys fees, allowed for periodic payments to be made AND made it so that the doctor could introduce evidence of amounts insurance paid.

Since 1975, the $250k limit has not increased. Had it been indexed to inflation it would be over a million now. Thus, the only real money in med mal is for a catastrophic injury (a vegetable requiring a million dollars per year in medical costs) or for a high income person unable to do the job (a $300k per year surgeon who can’t work anymore). Out-of-pocket expenses aren’t limited.

My wife is hotter than your wife.