Eric Turkewitz, The Turkewitz Law Firm, New York, NY
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Doctor "Flea" Settles Malpractice Suit After Blog Exposed In Court
A Boston pediatrician blogging under the pseudonym Flea has been outed. It happened in court. During cross-examination. On his own medical malpractice trial. And now it is the top story in the Boston Globe.Flea had written several posts about the upcoming trial, a wrongful death case involving a child. In the process he discussed his private prep sessions with his attorney, explaining how he had been coached to answer questions to be appealing to the jury, how he had been videotaped, and what materials his lawyers told him to read.
After seeing this, I wrote of the extraordinary risks of such disclosures, even under cover of pseudonymity. (See, Medical Malpractice Trial Starting For Med-Blogger.) The issues I raised, in the event plaintiffs' counsel discovered his blog, ran to the risks of losing his attorney-client privilege for all such communications. If this happened, he could be cross-examined on how he was coached by his defense team to act in front of the jury and the advice they gave him. He also ran he risk of his own insurance carrier trying to disclaim coverage if it thought he was hindering the defense.
Shortly after, he took down three blog postings (Med-Blogger, On Trial For Malpractice, Takes Down Trial Posts), asserting he was superstitious and didn't want to jinx things that were going well. Then he took down the entire blog, without explanation (Med-Blogger Flea, Previously Live-Blogging His Trial, Takes Down Entire Site).
Dozens of medical and legal bloggers had commented on the live-blogging of the trial, as well as the subsequent, unexplained disappearance of the popular, award-winning doctor-writer.
Well, as revealed in today's Boston Globe, it appears that plaintiff's counsel did find out about the blog. And at the end of the day when Flea was on the witness stand in "a Perry Mason moment," the questions came:
Do you have a medical blog?As per the Boston Globe article, court adjourned for the day, and the case quickly settled.
Are you Flea?
Why did he do it? While I don't know Flea, and have no connection to him other than these postings, my best guess was this: He loved writing and this was great material. The subject was, simply put, irresistible. I know that I found his activity fascinating, not only for its raw content, but also for the walking-a-high-wire-without-a-net danger of what he was doing. As seen in the links below, I clearly wasn't the only one rubbernecking.
How many people took note of this ongoing saga? These links help tell the tale (and there are others), both for the uniqueness of a doctor live-blogging his own malpractice trial and also due to the huge popularity of the blogger:
- Liveblogging a malpractice trial (Overlawyered);
- Getting Inside a Medical Malpractice Case (Law.com Blog Network - Carolyn Elefant)
- MD Blogs Own Med-Mal Trial (Law.com Blog Network - Robert Ambrogi)
- Jury Notes From Elsewhere, May 11: Trial through the defendant's eyes (Deliberations)
- Through the Eyes of a Flea (Simple Justice)
- Flea's trial blogging catches a lawyer's attention (Kevin, M.D.)
- Blogging Your Own Med Mal Trial (TortsProf)
- Medical Malpractice Defense Lawyers' Nightmare Client (Hans Poppe, with archived Flea posts:
- Flea Takes A Screen Test (April 24th)
- What do malpractice juries care about (April 26th)
- Flea on Trial-Day One, Jury Selection (May 9th)
- The Flea Circus (symtym)
- On the blogs: malpractice trial prep (Boston Globe Blog, White Coat Notes)
- Black Wednesday: A dark day for the medical blogosphere (Kevin, M.D.)
- The Flea Bite (or lessons learned from angry fans) (Simple Justice)
- Medical Bloggers: Held to a Privacy Double Standard? (Dr. Wes)
- FEAR NOT: Picking Up The Gauntlet In The Medical Blogosphere (Dr. J's House Calls)
- Medical Blogging and the Tragedy of the Commons (Stranger Than You Can Imagine)
- Dr. Flea Disappears (Doctor Anonymous)
- One Injustice After Another (Moof)
- The Dearth of Physician Bloggers (intueri: to contemplate)
- Flea Gone (Scalpel)
- The Death of a Flea (Tales from the Emergency Room)
- Where Have All The Medical Bloggers Gone? (From Medskool)
- Farewell and Goodluck (Tales from Health Records)
- What happened to Flea? (Scanman)
- In Memorandum (Highlight Health)
- 2 Medical Blogs Shut Down (Revolution Health)
- Dark Days in the Medical Blogosphere (MSSP Nexus Blog)
- The "Butterflying" of the Medical Blogosphere (Mexico Medical Student)
- I am a blogger. I am a doctor (Musings of a Distractible Mind)
- What is Happening to Medical Blogs (Tales from the Womb)
- The Medical Blogosphere (It's all about the walls)
Addendum: Here is a cached version of Flea's old site before it was taken down. (Hat tip to Hub Blog)
2nd Addendum: More on Doctor "Flea" Being Outed On The Witness Stand
(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)
Labels: Blogging, Flea Medical Malpractice Case, Medical Malpractice
Comments:
Links to this post:
<< Home
Pretty impressive Eric. Talk about the influence of blogs!
And, good thing the plaintiff's counsel was "hip" to blogs--a thing that many lawyers have not yet caught on to. It certainly helped her case, didn't it?
Too bad the mainstream media didn't give you credit for your original post. But, I predict that within the next year or so, that will begin to happen with more frequency.
In any event, great job. Way to be on the cutting edge!
And, good thing the plaintiff's counsel was "hip" to blogs--a thing that many lawyers have not yet caught on to. It certainly helped her case, didn't it?
Too bad the mainstream media didn't give you credit for your original post. But, I predict that within the next year or so, that will begin to happen with more frequency.
In any event, great job. Way to be on the cutting edge!
Yeah great job eric, you too Elizabeth Mulvey, and while are at it good job to you to nicole...are we done with this back-slapping circle-jerk yet? Once again I am reminded of the sports event atmosphere lawyers have for this process. Jesus Christ someone died. Of course inspite of the settlement nobody knows whether it was really malpractice. From what I can tell the legal establishement doesn't even care. It is all about the W. Thanks for reminding me once again that law has nothing to do with the truth. It's all about smoke and parlor games. Then you wonder why doctor's can't stand you jokers. All this settlement does is silence a whole generation of med bloggers. Way to go guys. Nice to know you are advocates of self-censorship. Am I the only one her to see the irony?
# posted by 
: May 31, 2007 10:48 AM
: May 31, 2007 10:48 AM
Wow Anon, you're a bitter fella.
I come from a family of physicians--at least 10 close relatives, and not a one of 'em harbors the deep seated animosity toward lawyers that you exhibit.
And, on a side note, it's nice to actually be involved in a circle jerk for once in my life. I really feel like one of the guys now.
But, I gotta say, if this is all there is to it, then circle jerks are *way* overrated. Maybe I haven't really been missing out after all.
I come from a family of physicians--at least 10 close relatives, and not a one of 'em harbors the deep seated animosity toward lawyers that you exhibit.
And, on a side note, it's nice to actually be involved in a circle jerk for once in my life. I really feel like one of the guys now.
But, I gotta say, if this is all there is to it, then circle jerks are *way* overrated. Maybe I haven't really been missing out after all.
Not bitter nicole just stunned about your lack of interest in the truth. But, I'll say it again "law" has little to do with "truth". I suspect your 10 physician family (if that is really true) waters-down their opinions of lawyers in front of you. I know I do. Then again you do DWI law not med-malpractice. They may have more choice words for you otherwise. I am not surprised about your lack of response to my self-censorship issue. When it comes to $$ and ethics I guess I know where you stand.
# posted by : May 31, 2007 12:35 PM
: May 31, 2007 12:35 PM
I tell the truth, anon. It's not hard to check into my allegations. As my personal web site states, I am originally from Syracuse, NY. A quick check will show you that a number o "Dr. Blacks" work there. A few other relatives are scattered across the country as well.
And, I grew up around these guys, remember? They were talking about lawyers and lawsuits long before I became a lawyer. And, as I'd said--the level of animousity that you exhibit just wasn't there--even when I practiced med mal plaintiffs work at the civil litigation firm that I worked at before my current job.
As for self-censorship, that's not really the issue in my humble opinion. The issue is blogging intelligently given your circumstances.
For example, I blog about substantive NY law on the my other blog, but I go out of my wayto be diplomatic and avoid posting things about appellate decisions that might upset any appellate judges who might happen to stumble upon my humble blog.
And, if I were being sued and I had an anonymous blog, I would avoid either 1) blogging about the situation entirely or 2) would blog about it generally, but would avoid providing any personal information whatsoever, such as geographical location, area of pratice etc. in order to avoid discovery.
Common sense, in my mind, not self-censorhip.
And, I grew up around these guys, remember? They were talking about lawyers and lawsuits long before I became a lawyer. And, as I'd said--the level of animousity that you exhibit just wasn't there--even when I practiced med mal plaintiffs work at the civil litigation firm that I worked at before my current job.
As for self-censorship, that's not really the issue in my humble opinion. The issue is blogging intelligently given your circumstances.
For example, I blog about substantive NY law on the my other blog, but I go out of my wayto be diplomatic and avoid posting things about appellate decisions that might upset any appellate judges who might happen to stumble upon my humble blog.
And, if I were being sued and I had an anonymous blog, I would avoid either 1) blogging about the situation entirely or 2) would blog about it generally, but would avoid providing any personal information whatsoever, such as geographical location, area of pratice etc. in order to avoid discovery.
Common sense, in my mind, not self-censorhip.
Nicole:
I don't really care about you and your history. If you are truly interested why don't you take your lawyer hat off and have an honest indepth conversation with them as an adult and not talk about your experience around them when you were playing with barbie's. Most doctor's don't go around discussing the subject with their family (especially kids). You do remember we are told not to discuss the subject by your brethran? I don't know if you read flea's suit topic in real-time (I did). He did not discuss specifics of the case. He talked about his experience and some OBVIOUS short-comings of our legal system. This includes lawyer's tendancy to pick the most malleable and at times least educated members of our society for our juries. I personally have never met a doctor who served on a jury. We seem to be the first ones dropped. So do other educated professionals. But those eighth grade dropouts, you have their number eh? The fact is flea did not talk about the specifics of the case he did talk about his experience as a defendant. Ms Mulroy's tactic had nothing to do with the truth. It was about getting a W with smoke and mirrors. Now flea has settlement and a letter in the the national practioner's databank. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he committed gross malpractice. I don't know. The fact is neither do you, eric, anybody else in blogger land, and the jury doesn't either. Flea did not get his day in court because of lawyer games. If he had talked specifically about the case itself then I would be in agreement with you. He rather talked about the legal mechanisms and how it worked (or rather didn't work). I am not saying this in spite Ms. Black, but it is my sincere hope you end up on the other side on a civil trial like this so you can see what it is like. Please don't talk to me about legal malpratice becasue I can tell you that your malpractice is just a tiny fraction of mine. Now Go Red Wings, after all it is just a game to be won or lost right?
I don't really care about you and your history. If you are truly interested why don't you take your lawyer hat off and have an honest indepth conversation with them as an adult and not talk about your experience around them when you were playing with barbie's. Most doctor's don't go around discussing the subject with their family (especially kids). You do remember we are told not to discuss the subject by your brethran? I don't know if you read flea's suit topic in real-time (I did). He did not discuss specifics of the case. He talked about his experience and some OBVIOUS short-comings of our legal system. This includes lawyer's tendancy to pick the most malleable and at times least educated members of our society for our juries. I personally have never met a doctor who served on a jury. We seem to be the first ones dropped. So do other educated professionals. But those eighth grade dropouts, you have their number eh? The fact is flea did not talk about the specifics of the case he did talk about his experience as a defendant. Ms Mulroy's tactic had nothing to do with the truth. It was about getting a W with smoke and mirrors. Now flea has settlement and a letter in the the national practioner's databank. Maybe he deserved it, maybe he committed gross malpractice. I don't know. The fact is neither do you, eric, anybody else in blogger land, and the jury doesn't either. Flea did not get his day in court because of lawyer games. If he had talked specifically about the case itself then I would be in agreement with you. He rather talked about the legal mechanisms and how it worked (or rather didn't work). I am not saying this in spite Ms. Black, but it is my sincere hope you end up on the other side on a civil trial like this so you can see what it is like. Please don't talk to me about legal malpratice becasue I can tell you that your malpractice is just a tiny fraction of mine. Now Go Red Wings, after all it is just a game to be won or lost right?
# posted by : May 31, 2007 1:30 PM
: May 31, 2007 1:30 PM
Flea did not get his day in court because of lawyer games
Actually, we really don't know that. It's possible the trial wasn't going well for him, and this was simply the straw the broke the camel's back. We simply don't know the extent to which the blog factored in to the settlement.
--ET
Actually, we really don't know that. It's possible the trial wasn't going well for him, and this was simply the straw the broke the camel's back. We simply don't know the extent to which the blog factored in to the settlement.
--ET
Come now eric you were following flea's blog (like me). Though no one knows for sure, the last thread with the baseball analogy didn't come from someone about to throw in the towel.
# posted by : May 31, 2007 2:04 PM
: May 31, 2007 2:04 PM
Come now eric you were following flea's blog (like me). Though no one knows for sure, the last thread with the baseball analogy didn't come from someone about to throw in the towel.
Yup. I saw that. But we don't know what it was based on. He obviously hadn't taken the witness stand yet, and odds are, he was the most important witness.
While I understand the urge to leap to the conclusion that the blog was the reason for the settlement, my gut tells me there was probably a whole lot more going on.
--ET
--ET
Yup. I saw that. But we don't know what it was based on. He obviously hadn't taken the witness stand yet, and odds are, he was the most important witness.
While I understand the urge to leap to the conclusion that the blog was the reason for the settlement, my gut tells me there was probably a whole lot more going on.
--ET
--ET
Additionally eric it was the beginning of the second day of the trial. Come now be honest with yourself now ...not a lawyer.
# posted by : May 31, 2007 3:01 PM
: May 31, 2007 3:01 PM
"Please don't talk to me about legal malpratice becasue I can tell you that your malpractice is just a tiny fraction of mine."
So, apparently you've reviewed my pleadings, analytical memos and entire legal career now, have you, flea? Or, rather, "Anon".
And, yes, denigrate my location, please. I love it when my "hickville" status is exposed. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Next thing you know you'll be knocking down my alma maters. I know that they're not Ivy League material, like Yale, so I must be an idiot. Because Ivy league status makes all the difference in life, dontcha know.
So, apparently you've reviewed my pleadings, analytical memos and entire legal career now, have you, flea? Or, rather, "Anon".
And, yes, denigrate my location, please. I love it when my "hickville" status is exposed. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Next thing you know you'll be knocking down my alma maters. I know that they're not Ivy League material, like Yale, so I must be an idiot. Because Ivy league status makes all the difference in life, dontcha know.
Since when is Rochester hickville Nicole? I didn't say you were from East Bloomfield now. My statement alluded to the sports arena mentality in law. Frankly, I don't care where you where educated. About your malpractice. Come now we both know that unless you are a totally incompetant attorney that has lost legal malpractice cases against her multiple times, then you would have a malpractice rate at a fraction of a doctor's. Don't believe me, look up the relative malpractice rates. By the way I find it curious that you never actually addressed the meat of my statements rather the edges. Your silence says volumes.
PS: I am not flea. He is a much more gracious blogger. But please do keep up the prejudgments it seems to be your forte.
PS: I am not flea. He is a much more gracious blogger. But please do keep up the prejudgments it seems to be your forte.
# posted by : May 31, 2007 3:27 PM
: May 31, 2007 3:27 PM
Listen, Anon, I'm the first to concede that med. mal is a problem. And, I'm the first to concede that the system is not perfect. But, the malpractice rates are not simply due to overzealous lawyers. In my opinion, they're due in part to the ridiculous reimbursement rates that Drs. are subjected to by ins. companies.
Lawyers are faced with the same problem.
Because Drs. are reimbursed at such a ridiculously low level, they are required to see far more patients per hour than they should just in order to break even. There's bound to be malpractice occurring when you see your patients for all of 5 minutes.
I don't blame Drs. one bit for that, but unfortuantely, it's far easier to recover from Drs. than it is to recover from insurers for med. malpractice.
Drs. don't like it any more than their patients do.
Anothe issue is that Drs. are working more and more hours just to maintain their income as a result of the low reimbrusement rates and problems with medicare and medicaid.
The problem does not rest soley on the sholders of lawyers, my friend. Granted, some overzealous lawyers may contribute to the problem, but they're just one piece of a very complex puzzle.
Lawyers are faced with the same problem.
Because Drs. are reimbursed at such a ridiculously low level, they are required to see far more patients per hour than they should just in order to break even. There's bound to be malpractice occurring when you see your patients for all of 5 minutes.
I don't blame Drs. one bit for that, but unfortuantely, it's far easier to recover from Drs. than it is to recover from insurers for med. malpractice.
Drs. don't like it any more than their patients do.
Anothe issue is that Drs. are working more and more hours just to maintain their income as a result of the low reimbrusement rates and problems with medicare and medicaid.
The problem does not rest soley on the sholders of lawyers, my friend. Granted, some overzealous lawyers may contribute to the problem, but they're just one piece of a very complex puzzle.
No Nicole, if "the standard of care" is to see patients for only 5 minutes, it can't be "malpractice" to see someone for only 5 minutes.
What precisely did Flea's blog have to do with the "facts" of the malpractice case? No doubt Flea is an "idiot" for blogging about his trial, but what does "being an idiot for blogging about his trial" have to do with the "facts" of the malpractice case?
What does being a boorish idiot about legal matters have to do with the "facts" of the malpractice case?
The truth is, trials are not about "facts". They are about trial by combat using lawyers as hired champions. There is no such thing as an "overzealous" lawyer.
Corrrect me if I am wrong, but isn't every lawyer supposed to do anything and everything possible short of doing something illegal to get their client the W?
What precisely did Flea's blog have to do with the "facts" of the malpractice case? No doubt Flea is an "idiot" for blogging about his trial, but what does "being an idiot for blogging about his trial" have to do with the "facts" of the malpractice case?
What does being a boorish idiot about legal matters have to do with the "facts" of the malpractice case?
The truth is, trials are not about "facts". They are about trial by combat using lawyers as hired champions. There is no such thing as an "overzealous" lawyer.
Corrrect me if I am wrong, but isn't every lawyer supposed to do anything and everything possible short of doing something illegal to get their client the W?
Anon, talk about arrogant, you take the cake. What THIS was about is the death of a child. Was it malpractice? Maybe, maybe not...We will never know but for you to state it was only about Lawyers makes next to no sense at all.
This was about a 12 year old child who is now dead. You physicians are absolutely no better than the attorneys and some of you are far worse. You couldn't care less about the merits of a case. You only know a physician is on trial and automatically it is not his fault that someone is dead. guess what, maybe it was his fault. get over yourself!
This was about a 12 year old child who is now dead. You physicians are absolutely no better than the attorneys and some of you are far worse. You couldn't care less about the merits of a case. You only know a physician is on trial and automatically it is not his fault that someone is dead. guess what, maybe it was his fault. get over yourself!
# posted by : May 31, 2007 6:32 PM
: May 31, 2007 6:32 PM
Mr. Turkewitz, some of us weren't "rubbernecking." Some of us know Dr. Flea personally, and we know just how unjust all of this has been - and is ... and not just to Dr. Flea ...
I sometimes wonder if med mal lawyers see physicians as "fatted calves" ... ready for the slaughter? Do you realize that some of us watching from the sidelines are beginning to realize that lawyers are more than just peripherally instrumental in the destruction of our nation's healthcare?
Mz. Black should be aware that med mal is not exonerated from blame simply because it's not the only one feeding on the medical profession. It's a major problem, and the entire country is going to pay the price in the long run - and in fact, already is.
It's your own parents, your children, yourselves - who will suffer along with the rest of us when family practices are staffed only by PAs and NPs.
Keep it up. But remember - once you've killed the goose, you're going to be hard put to find your next source of golden eggs.
As importantly - future generations will be able to look back and pinpoint the cause behind the erosion of an entire class' rights to privacy and free speech (and yes, even the right to anonymity) squarely where it belongs: on a group of greedy professionals, who apparently have no conscience whatsoever, and no thought for anything but the gratification of the moment.
I sometimes wonder if med mal lawyers see physicians as "fatted calves" ... ready for the slaughter? Do you realize that some of us watching from the sidelines are beginning to realize that lawyers are more than just peripherally instrumental in the destruction of our nation's healthcare?
Mz. Black should be aware that med mal is not exonerated from blame simply because it's not the only one feeding on the medical profession. It's a major problem, and the entire country is going to pay the price in the long run - and in fact, already is.
It's your own parents, your children, yourselves - who will suffer along with the rest of us when family practices are staffed only by PAs and NPs.
Keep it up. But remember - once you've killed the goose, you're going to be hard put to find your next source of golden eggs.
As importantly - future generations will be able to look back and pinpoint the cause behind the erosion of an entire class' rights to privacy and free speech (and yes, even the right to anonymity) squarely where it belongs: on a group of greedy professionals, who apparently have no conscience whatsoever, and no thought for anything but the gratification of the moment.
Mr. Turkewitz, some of us weren't "rubbernecking." Some of us know Dr. Flea personally, and we know just how unjust all of this has been - and is ... and not just to Dr. Flea ...
Moof:
Rubbenecking was not used in any kind of negative sense. It was only a reflection that many people were watching to see what would happen. Both those who know him personally and those who "know" him digitally.
I sometimes wonder if med mal lawyers see physicians as "fatted calves" ... ready for the slaughter?
I turn away over 95% of the inquiries to my office. For the way I run the process, see
Medical Malpractice -- Vetting the Case
--ET
Moof:
Rubbenecking was not used in any kind of negative sense. It was only a reflection that many people were watching to see what would happen. Both those who know him personally and those who "know" him digitally.
I sometimes wonder if med mal lawyers see physicians as "fatted calves" ... ready for the slaughter?
I turn away over 95% of the inquiries to my office. For the way I run the process, see
Medical Malpractice -- Vetting the Case
--ET
Nicole: We are talking about one case here not the whole fiasco called med-mal. Flea was outed and appears to have settled for reasons little to do with malpractice.
Celine: You comprehension of the english language is underwhelming. Did you actually read what I wrote let's see:
"Once again I am reminded of the sports event atmosphere lawyers have for this process. Jesus Christ someone died"
"Of course inspite of the settlement nobody knows whether it was really malpractice."
"It is all about the W. Thanks for reminding me once again that law has nothing to do with the truth."
"Not bitter nicole just stunned about your lack of interest in the truth. But, I'll say it again "law" has little to do with "truth"
"Ms Mulroy's tactic had nothing to do with the truth"
"Maybe he deserved it, maybe he committed gross malpractice. I don't know. The fact is neither do you, eric, anybody else in blogger land, and the jury doesn't either."
How about next time you actually read what is written. You will sound a little less like a fool.
Celine: You comprehension of the english language is underwhelming. Did you actually read what I wrote let's see:
"Once again I am reminded of the sports event atmosphere lawyers have for this process. Jesus Christ someone died"
"Of course inspite of the settlement nobody knows whether it was really malpractice."
"It is all about the W. Thanks for reminding me once again that law has nothing to do with the truth."
"Not bitter nicole just stunned about your lack of interest in the truth. But, I'll say it again "law" has little to do with "truth"
"Ms Mulroy's tactic had nothing to do with the truth"
"Maybe he deserved it, maybe he committed gross malpractice. I don't know. The fact is neither do you, eric, anybody else in blogger land, and the jury doesn't either."
How about next time you actually read what is written. You will sound a little less like a fool.
# posted by : May 31, 2007 10:11 PM
: May 31, 2007 10:11 PM
moof,
I think that ET is one of the less "overzealous" ones. Unfortunately there is a race to the bottom, and who ever can make the most $$$ for their client by what ever means (so long as it remains legal) is the "better" lawyer. If you don't have the stomach for it, you are a bad lawyer and should do something else.
It is like medicine before the days of the FDA and the food and drug act. When any substance could be sold for any purpose. Where tapeworm eggs were sold as weight loss aids. It was buyer beware. A period that China is going through right now, where low cost and passing the "tests" are all that matters. Fool the "test" for protein with indigestible plastic? Make a few more pennies. People die? They should have used a better test.
It is "buyer beware" in the legal system. Any legal "theory" can be proposed, so long as a jury "buys" it. If you can convince a jury of something it becomes a "fact" because it is juries that are (by definition) "finders of facts". That is why lawyers want ignorant jurors. So they can be manipulated into "buying" the "legal theory" they are trying to sell.
Fool the jurors into "buying" your "legal theory"? Get the W for your client. Get the W. Then by "definition" your client is "right". You losers should have used a "better" lawyer, one "better" at fooling juries.
Because we are a society of laws, who ever controls those laws has absolute power. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
I think that ET is one of the less "overzealous" ones. Unfortunately there is a race to the bottom, and who ever can make the most $$$ for their client by what ever means (so long as it remains legal) is the "better" lawyer. If you don't have the stomach for it, you are a bad lawyer and should do something else.
It is like medicine before the days of the FDA and the food and drug act. When any substance could be sold for any purpose. Where tapeworm eggs were sold as weight loss aids. It was buyer beware. A period that China is going through right now, where low cost and passing the "tests" are all that matters. Fool the "test" for protein with indigestible plastic? Make a few more pennies. People die? They should have used a better test.
It is "buyer beware" in the legal system. Any legal "theory" can be proposed, so long as a jury "buys" it. If you can convince a jury of something it becomes a "fact" because it is juries that are (by definition) "finders of facts". That is why lawyers want ignorant jurors. So they can be manipulated into "buying" the "legal theory" they are trying to sell.
Fool the jurors into "buying" your "legal theory"? Get the W for your client. Get the W. Then by "definition" your client is "right". You losers should have used a "better" lawyer, one "better" at fooling juries.
Because we are a society of laws, who ever controls those laws has absolute power. "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton
"Mr. Turkewitz, some of us weren't "rubbernecking." Some of us know Dr. Flea personally, and we know just how unjust all of this has been - and is ... and not just to Dr. Flea ..."
Moof, you have no idea if this case is unjust, because you've never seen the records. You've heard one side of the story, and he only revealed minimal facts of the case.
Do you always form allegiances to one side or another based on such a meager knowledge of the facts?
Daedalus, I'm curious about what seems to be your intricate knowledge of trial work - what jurisdiction do you practice law in?
Moof, you have no idea if this case is unjust, because you've never seen the records. You've heard one side of the story, and he only revealed minimal facts of the case.
Do you always form allegiances to one side or another based on such a meager knowledge of the facts?
Daedalus, I'm curious about what seems to be your intricate knowledge of trial work - what jurisdiction do you practice law in?
# posted by : May 31, 2007 11:18 PM
: May 31, 2007 11:18 PM
anonymous, have I misrepresented a lawyer's duty to their client? Or have I merely stated it in terms that you personally find stark and distasteful?
Too distasteful to talk about, but not too distasteful to not use?
Maybe it is a minority of lawyers who act this way. Maybe it is even a small minority. How can someone "protect" themselves when sued by such a lawyer?
Too distasteful to talk about, but not too distasteful to not use?
Maybe it is a minority of lawyers who act this way. Maybe it is even a small minority. How can someone "protect" themselves when sued by such a lawyer?
I want to suggest that some of you fierce defenders of Flea, go to the librar, or the book store, and get the book titled "The Stranger Beside Me."
It was written by Ann Rule (true crime writer). She talks about her personal friend and co-worker, during the years she worked on a suicide hotline. How this co-worker helped many people and how she witnessed him, through his words, to stop some from committing
suicide. How he was the most polite and well mannered person she ever knew. He always put everyone else ahead of himself.
When he was later arrested, she defended him like no other, and it would take her years to accept the truth about him.
Now, Im not saying Flea in any way compares to this guy. What Im saying is that some of "you" compare to Ann Rule. If you dont have the medical records and you dont have all the information, how, can you defend him based on what you WANT to believe? I know you are going to say its our "Freedom of Speech" thing that has you all worked up. Well, I cant go to work on Monday and tell my boss that he is a f****** ass****, no matter how much freedom we have. Do you think being anonymous should take away all self censorship?
Oh, and Ann Rules friend, his name was Ted Bundy.
It was written by Ann Rule (true crime writer). She talks about her personal friend and co-worker, during the years she worked on a suicide hotline. How this co-worker helped many people and how she witnessed him, through his words, to stop some from committing
suicide. How he was the most polite and well mannered person she ever knew. He always put everyone else ahead of himself.
When he was later arrested, she defended him like no other, and it would take her years to accept the truth about him.
Now, Im not saying Flea in any way compares to this guy. What Im saying is that some of "you" compare to Ann Rule. If you dont have the medical records and you dont have all the information, how, can you defend him based on what you WANT to believe? I know you are going to say its our "Freedom of Speech" thing that has you all worked up. Well, I cant go to work on Monday and tell my boss that he is a f****** ass****, no matter how much freedom we have. Do you think being anonymous should take away all self censorship?
Oh, and Ann Rules friend, his name was Ted Bundy.
# posted by : June 02, 2007 12:40 AM
: June 02, 2007 12:40 AM
"
I think that ET is one of the less "overzealous" ones. Unfortunately there is a race to the bottom, and who ever can make the most $$$ for their client by what ever means (so long as it remains legal) is the "better" lawyer. If you don't have the stomach for it, you are a bad lawyer and should do something else."
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer, daedalus. You have misrepresented the duty of a lawyer. A lawyer is not entitled to maximize their clients recovery "by any means necessary".
I think that ET is one of the less "overzealous" ones. Unfortunately there is a race to the bottom, and who ever can make the most $$$ for their client by what ever means (so long as it remains legal) is the "better" lawyer. If you don't have the stomach for it, you are a bad lawyer and should do something else."
I'm guessing you're not a lawyer, daedalus. You have misrepresented the duty of a lawyer. A lawyer is not entitled to maximize their clients recovery "by any means necessary".
# posted by : June 02, 2007 3:27 PM
: June 02, 2007 3:27 PM
Anon 11:40:
re:"I want to suggest that some of you fierce defenders of Flea, go to the librar..."
Again, you (like celine) might want to read what was actually written here rather than what you want to be written. I don't see people defending flea. I see people (especially medical professionals) utterly disgusted with the fact that flea APPEARED to have settled for reasons that have nothing to do with malpractice. Reasons that support this statement include:
A: He settled right after Ms.Mulroy telegraphed she "knew" who he was (that is the next day).
B: He settled on the second day of the trial
Don't confuse the situation with Ann Rule/Ted Bundy. The two are not related to all but a flea syncophant (of which I see none here). The big question here was justice served? It sure doesn't look like it from this vantage point. Ms Mulroy and her colleagues might be patting each other on the back, but to me it points out what is clearly wrong with the legal system in this country. Ms. Mulroy didn't "prove" that flea committed malpractice. She used smoke and mirrors to get a W. That is not how I do my job and frankly I couldn't look myself in the mirror in the AM if I acted like that. I guess I must have a higher level of respect for my profession than she has for hers.
PS: before anybody pipes in, none of us has the records...period.
re:"I want to suggest that some of you fierce defenders of Flea, go to the librar..."
Again, you (like celine) might want to read what was actually written here rather than what you want to be written. I don't see people defending flea. I see people (especially medical professionals) utterly disgusted with the fact that flea APPEARED to have settled for reasons that have nothing to do with malpractice. Reasons that support this statement include:
A: He settled right after Ms.Mulroy telegraphed she "knew" who he was (that is the next day).
B: He settled on the second day of the trial
Don't confuse the situation with Ann Rule/Ted Bundy. The two are not related to all but a flea syncophant (of which I see none here). The big question here was justice served? It sure doesn't look like it from this vantage point. Ms Mulroy and her colleagues might be patting each other on the back, but to me it points out what is clearly wrong with the legal system in this country. Ms. Mulroy didn't "prove" that flea committed malpractice. She used smoke and mirrors to get a W. That is not how I do my job and frankly I couldn't look myself in the mirror in the AM if I acted like that. I guess I must have a higher level of respect for my profession than she has for hers.
PS: before anybody pipes in, none of us has the records...period.
# posted by : June 03, 2007 11:25 PM
: June 03, 2007 11:25 PM
Interesting blog. I must too add the comment that it was the way in which this case was "won" that is distasteful. It is part of the problem the medical profession has with this whole process. If the doc in question had felt that settlement was the right thing to do based upon the case that would have been acceptable.
I would also comment that just like everyone else lawyers do not want to be seen as the "bad guy". However, we all know that a few "bad apples" make the whole barrel look rotten. Many have made comment that doctors are not the best at policing themsleves. In truth we try more than the public knows. This same problem seems to exist in the practice of law-- those that do take the rules to the breaking point or beyond don't seem to get punished in any way.
I would also comment that just like everyone else lawyers do not want to be seen as the "bad guy". However, we all know that a few "bad apples" make the whole barrel look rotten. Many have made comment that doctors are not the best at policing themsleves. In truth we try more than the public knows. This same problem seems to exist in the practice of law-- those that do take the rules to the breaking point or beyond don't seem to get punished in any way.
# posted by : July 08, 2007 1:22 AM
: July 08, 2007 1:22 AM
*sigh* I stumbled onto this while looking for Flea's blog. I have mixed feelings about it.
I will miss him.
I enjoyed his blog immensely, but when it came to his discussion about this case I couldn't help but feel it was callous(even if it were posted anonymously)to discuss publicly because a child had been lost.
It's upsetting that the case doesn't appear to be proven either way. Malpractice is pretty tough to prove, but in this case we won't know.
I don't like the way the system works, yet I would not like to see physicians doing what they will without any fear of repercussion.
More than once, I have been on the recieving end of really bad medicine. The effect it had on my psyche took years to overcome.
I'm sure the same is for someone that is being sued for malpractice. He will probably practice more cautiously and in the end that will affect patient care. Wether that is a good or a bad thing is entirely up to him.
The answer is not limiting settlements or blaming lawyers. The answer lies in the proper licensing of physicians. Our government not doing it's job to protect us. There are too many incompetent physicians practicing medicine.
Post a Comment
I will miss him.
I enjoyed his blog immensely, but when it came to his discussion about this case I couldn't help but feel it was callous(even if it were posted anonymously)to discuss publicly because a child had been lost.
It's upsetting that the case doesn't appear to be proven either way. Malpractice is pretty tough to prove, but in this case we won't know.
I don't like the way the system works, yet I would not like to see physicians doing what they will without any fear of repercussion.
More than once, I have been on the recieving end of really bad medicine. The effect it had on my psyche took years to overcome.
I'm sure the same is for someone that is being sued for malpractice. He will probably practice more cautiously and in the end that will affect patient care. Wether that is a good or a bad thing is entirely up to him.
The answer is not limiting settlements or blaming lawyers. The answer lies in the proper licensing of physicians. Our government not doing it's job to protect us. There are too many incompetent physicians practicing medicine.
# posted by : July 10, 2007 11:40 PM
: July 10, 2007 11:40 PMLinks to this post:
<< Home
The New York Personal Injury Law Blog does not accept advertising banners, pop up ads or other distractions from its content. But since The Turkewitz Law Firm is the sole sponsor, it may be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.)
Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.
Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.
Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.
Subscribe
|
Home
Subscribe by Email
About the author
Eric Turkewitz has litigated New York personal injury and medical malpractice cases for 20 years, and is the founder of The Turkewitz Law Firm in New York. His firm's website is at www.TurkewitzLaw.com.
View by Label
Welcome New Visitors
General Legal Research Links
National Law Blogs ("Blawgs")
New York Law Blogs
Law Blog Directories
Tort "Reform"
Personal Injury / Litigation
Legally Humorous
Medical
Archives
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Nicole Black //
May 31, 2007 7:52 AM
//
May 31, 2007 10:48 AM
Nicole Black //
May 31, 2007 12:07 PM
//
May 31, 2007 12:35 PM
Nicole Black //
May 31, 2007 12:56 PM
//
May 31, 2007 1:30 PM
Eric Turkewitz //
May 31, 2007 1:45 PM
//
May 31, 2007 2:04 PM
Eric Turkewitz //
May 31, 2007 2:11 PM
//
May 31, 2007 3:01 PM
Nicole Black //
May 31, 2007 3:15 PM
//
May 31, 2007 3:27 PM
Nicole Black //
May 31, 2007 3:54 PM
daedalus2u //
May 31, 2007 5:25 PM
//
May 31, 2007 6:32 PM
moof //
May 31, 2007 6:56 PM
Eric Turkewitz //
May 31, 2007 8:42 PM
//
May 31, 2007 10:11 PM
daedalus2u //
May 31, 2007 10:17 PM
//
May 31, 2007 11:18 PM
daedalus2u //
June 01, 2007 8:16 AM
The Independent Urologist //
June 01, 2007 8:43 AM
//
June 02, 2007 12:40 AM
//
June 02, 2007 3:27 PM
//
June 03, 2007 11:25 PM
//
July 08, 2007 1:22 AM
//
July 10, 2007 11:40 PM
Legal News
Copyright © 2007 Eric Turkewitz & The Turkewitz Law Firm
About the New York Personal Injury Law Blog:
An attorney's blog on New York personal injury law,
medical malpractice, the civil justice system
and cases of interest.
