The case was later settled in arbitration.

  • roofuskit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 days ago

    That’s was up to the plaintiff, not the judge. As it was a civil suit it was probably too expensive them to pay to panel another jury and then re-argue the case. Lawyers are expensive.

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      That’s was up to the plaintiff, not the judge.

      Yes, and their position was worsened by him being a good doctor. That feels like a win to me.

      • entwine413@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 days ago

        Not to the plaintiff if he was actually guilty of medical malpractice.

        Saving someone’s life doesn’t mean you can’t commit malpractice.

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Correct, but I’m evaluating this from the defendant’s perspective. If you want to consider this a neutral development until you’re able to evaluate the facts of the case, that’s your prerogative. If you find them, I’d be interested in reading them.

      • qarbone@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        From what I could read, he just used a defib kit. Would his ability to ease symptoms of a heart attack have any bearing on his fitness to do whatever the hell gynelogical oncology entails?

        I guess it doesn’t have to, in fact. It just has to feel like it does to win over a selection of people who don’t really care amd wouldn’t know better.

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        You’re assuming it wasn’t his insurance company that pushed to settle to avoid the costs of another trial.

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          I’ve worked in insurance companies for long term bodily injury claims, they wanted that from the start. The mistrial allowed them to get it.

    • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 days ago

      You can sue to include layers/court fees. And most of the time, these types of layers dont do it for base fees, they do it for a % of the settlement. If theyre going after malpractice, they have insurance to pay that out. I cant really imagine the cost of court would sway them against going back to trial.

        • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          Insurance is on the side of the defendant. The plantif determines if they go back to court. Insuance has nothing to do with that

            • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              They likely made a settlement offer the first time too. The easily could have made a worse settlement offer the second time because court was going so well, and the plantif knew they might not get what they were asking for.

              We dont know