home

You're Gonna Live! I'm Gonna Sue!

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Off Topic
Posted on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:06:42 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
A guy went to the doctor and the doctor gave him six months to live. Six months later when the fellow hadn't paid his bill the doctor gave him another six months to live. -Henny Youngman

Here is a story I find funny:

A British man who went on a wild spending spree after doctors said he only had a short time to live . . . John Brandrick, 62, was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer two years ago and told that he would probably die within a year.

He quit his job, sold or gave away nearly all his possessions, stopped paying his mortgage and spent his savings dining out and going on holiday. Brandrick was left with little more than the black suit, white shirt and red tie that he had planned to be buried in.

. . . [A] year later . . . . his suspected "tumor" was no more than a non-life threatening inflammation of the pancreas. . . . [H]e is considering . . . suing the hospital that diagnosed him.

Funny but I see his point. Reliance right?

< Losing Liberty | Phil Spector's Burden >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    You're Gonna Live! I'm Gonna Sue! | 44 comments (44 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What's the problem? (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by garyb50 on Mon May 07, 2007 at 10:56:00 PM EST
    ...Did he gain so much weight his suit doesn't fit anymore?

    Seriously, I'm beginning to think if you don't have a bone sticking out you're much better off staying the hell away from the Wonderful World of Medicine.

    Health Care? Don't make me laugh.

    That lawsuit wouldn't even fly in California! (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by oculus on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:16:09 PM EST


    This dude needs to count his blessings.... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:03:16 AM EST
    he leisurely got to dick around for a year...and now he has a new lease on life.  Instead of suing the hospital, he should sell the rest of his stuff and bet it all on black...I mean the guy is hot right now, I'd say he can't lose.

    Bottom line, he is suing over good news....thats ridiculous.

    Well (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by squeaky on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:28:20 AM EST
    Vonnegut was going to sue the cigarette companies when he was in his early sixties. He was a long time heavy smoker and was very upset that the cancer sticks hadn't killed him yet.

    Parent
    But he didn't..... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:35:22 AM EST
    thats why he's one of my heroes.  He was above and beyond filing piker lawsuits.

    Parent
    Another Six Months (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by squeaky on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:45:43 AM EST
    A guy went to the doctor and the doctor gave him six months to live. Six months later when the fellow hadn't paid his bill the doctor gave him another six months to live. -Henny Youngman
    Sounds like Thomas Friedmans Joke. Lieberman has taken over selling it.

    OK (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Che's Lounge on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:47:11 AM EST
    Doctor: "I have good news and bad news."

    Patient: "Whats the good news?"

    Doctor: "You have 24 hours to live".

    Patient: "That's the GOOD news? What's the bad news?"

    Doctor: "I tried to call you yesterday."

    What? (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by chemoelectric on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    He stopped paying his mortgage?

    Temporary Insanity (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:17:57 PM EST
    Brought on by a mis-diagnosis. Delerium.

    Parent
    This topic really has legs, eh? (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:40:18 PM EST


    Parent
    I dunno if you've read (none / 0) (#3)
    by Elias on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:35:22 PM EST
    Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer by Warren St.John (great book about Alabama football/fan culture) but while on research for the book he met someone who was diagnosed with terminal cancer, who then sold all his possessions and bought like a $2,000,000 RV to be able to follow the team all season long.  He didn't think of suing though, he just charged a couple bucks for tours of the thing.  

    Wow, if given news that I'm going to die (none / 0) (#4)
    by Freewill on Mon May 07, 2007 at 11:37:49 PM EST
    before I go selling everything and paying the diagnosing Doctor's bill, you had better believe I'm getting a second, third, and fourth opinion.

    I was once informed by a Co-worker, "Everyone should know a crackhead. They'll sell everything, some really good stuff, for cheap!" (Advice never taken for obvious reasons)

    However, I have thought about applying the above reasoning to "End of the Worlders". I've know several people who, with all do respect, actually believed that the Wrath of God was going to bear down upon the World and end all of the corruption and bring upon the Rapture. They were extremely serious and filled with unfettering faith. They explained to me that we would not exist past October 2005, maybe November 2005 at the latest (some kind of calendar calculation thing). At the time I was told this back in May of 2005 I told my buddy: "Hey man listen, it's time for you to start living. Live it up! Be with your family, sell, sell, sell, and travel. Don't worry about your worldly possessions, they will not exist past October. By the way, what are you going to do with all your tools?"

    Needless to say, his faith wasn't that as strong as he put on. He stayed on the job, continued to pay his bills, didn't go out and open new lines of credit. He stuck it out and I'm happy to report he and his family are still here on Earth today.

    I pocketed a sweet $5 dollars from our bet that I would see him at the 2005 Christmas party!  

    No only is it a lawsuit (none / 0) (#5)
    by robotalk on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:25:23 AM EST
    It's a good lawsuit.  Malpractice and Negligent Misrepresentation.  Next time the doctor will be a little more sure when s/he tells someone he's going to die.  That's a pretty awful mistake to make, don't you think?

    Its a lousy lawsuit. The California Supreme Ct. (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:49:23 PM EST
    sd. "no duty" to a man who asked his doctor how long he had to live.  The dr. overestimated.  The man died.  His estate sued on the theory that, had the dr. gotten it right, the man would have had the opportunity to properly manage his investments, leaving them more money.  

    Parent
    Wrong analogy. (none / 0) (#29)
    by nolo on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:10:38 PM EST
    I'm not sure about California, but lots of states allow claims for false diagnosis.  The problem in this guy's case is going to be that the available damages are your emotional distress over having been diagnosed (albeit mistakenly) with a terminal illness.  If this guy's reaction to the diagnosis was to quit his job and go have a party, he's going to have a hard time convincing a jury that he was all that bummed out.

    Parent
    Missed diagnosis, sure. But where the correct (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    diagnosis is "you've doing great"?  

    Parent
    Seriously, I'm not making this up. (none / 0) (#36)
    by nolo on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:22:07 PM EST
    Besides, sometimes the consequences of a mistaken bad diagnosis are more than just emotional distress.  Do you remember hearing about this woman, who underwent a double mastectomy as a result of a mistaken diagnosis?  

    Parent
    Yes. (none / 0) (#37)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:26:58 PM EST


    Parent
    The doctor was very wrong (none / 0) (#6)
    by Domino on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:32:12 AM EST
    If a doctor, who must be trusted, tells someone that they are dying, they damn well better be right.  If that means that the doctor should consult others, then he better.  Maybe there is no legal wrongdoing, but there sure as heck is moral wrongdoing.

    Let's say the patient did not sell off everything, but spent the year in despair of their impending death, then the doctor comes back and says sorry, I was wrong.  Good the patient is going to live, but they will have been changed by the thought of their death.  What if they committed suicide instead of going through a painful death by cancer?  Is not the suicide the doctor's fault, legally or not?  

    I don't want to hear that we should not trust doctors from the same folks who say we should not trust Government.  That is crap that can only be said by the healthy and prosperous.  Let someone get sick and old or disabled and gee, the government and Medicare sure is important.

    Something else (none / 0) (#7)
    by Domino on Tue May 08, 2007 at 04:38:10 AM EST
    Whether this doctor is sued or not, there should be some mechanism to put them on an official warning if they misdiagnose a non-fatal disease as fatal again, they should lose their license to practice medicine.  

    Domino (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:34:59 AM EST
    You do understand that it is the "art of medicene" don't you?

    "Doc, I've got a bad cold..."

    "Nurse! Schedule a full blood work up! Try for a  cat scan at 1PM! See if the ambulance is ready for a trip to ER!"

    ;-)

    Parent

    No sympathy (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:02:53 AM EST
    Yes practicing medicine can be personally risky.

    OTOH No one forced them to practice medicine and they are well compensated for it. Choices have consequnces- career choices and diagnostic ones.

    I practice in the area of law with the most malpractice claims. I don't whine about it. No sympathy.

     

    Parent

    Molly B (none / 0) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:43:02 AM EST
    Actually my point was the cost of defensive medicene.

    You should know something about that.

    Parent

    Non-sequiter (none / 0) (#24)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:47:29 PM EST
    I understood what you were getting at. Why do "defensive medicine"?  because....

    No sympathy.



    Parent

    Molly B (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:37:54 PM EST
    My whole point was in sympathy.

    Parent
    at best you have repeated yourself 3 times (none / 0) (#28)
    by Molly Bloom on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:02:53 PM EST
    I still have no smpathy for reasons stated.



    Parent

    My props to you Jim (none / 0) (#44)
    by Freewill on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:59:11 PM EST
    I concur with your point. Now that no mistakes are ever allowed in the medical profession, the cost of insuring a diagnosis is correct 100% for every patient would be extremely costly!

    We are all human and bound to make mistakes in some point in our lives.

    Parent

    One strike yer outta here, huh? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Edger on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:07:48 AM EST
    You've never made a mistake, I take it?

    Parent
    New diagnosis: (none / 0) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 08, 2007 at 08:31:28 AM EST
    You're gonna die. But don't take my word for it.
    That's actually an interesting theory (none / 0) (#18)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:47:26 AM EST
      It's well established that NEGIGENT failure to diagnose properly a condition can lead to liability if the NEGIGENT failure causes the patient not to receive needed tratment and that an injury is shown from the failure to receive treatment.

      A doctor could also be liable if a NEGIGENT incorrect diagnosis causes a patient to receive unnecessary treatment which is physically injurious and/or costs him money.  

    I'm not versed in British malpractice law, but here it's not negligent to merely make the "wrong" diagnosis. It has to be shown that the doctor made the wrong diagnosis by failure to follow the applicable standard of care.

      If the patient can show "negligence" and not just a "wrong diagnosis" he then has the hurdle of establishing that a voluntary decision to spend as if "there is no tomorrow" can be considered to have been "proximately caused" by the negligent wrong diagnosis. "Proximate causation is a more narrow concept than "but for" causation and courts might be very hesitant to find it in such circumstances--- but in this day and age who knows.

       One major difference between our system and the British, though is the "loser pays" rule in Britain under which a losing party is assessed the attorney fees and costs of the prevailing party. That makes taking a flyer on an iffy case a lot more risky

     

    For the Lawyers Here (none / 0) (#19)
    by eric on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:00:25 AM EST
    Imagine if in your representation you looked at something wrong and that you were convinced that a lawsuit was a loser.  Then you told your client, in no uncertain terms, that his case was a loser such that your client dismissed his claim to his detriment.  Then, a year later, it becomes clear that you were wrong and the case was actually not a loser.  In the mean time, your client has acted on your advice and suffered great economic harm.

    I would turn the case over to my malpractice at that point, wouldn't you?

    Absolutely (none / 0) (#21)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:13:15 AM EST
      it's a little different though because giving a client legal advice that is "objectively wrong" in terms of the law applicable to a claim and leads to a voluntary dismissal of an action (and we'll assume subsequent expiration of the SOL)  is probably negligence per se.

      It would be a tough sell to convince anyone that you were justified in advising a client to dismiss a meritorious claim based on a mistaken belief it was not even possibly meritorious.  Is it possible to reconcile that with a minimum level of competence standard in the field?

      In medicine though, a diagnosis could be "objectively wrong" but the dosctor could still show he adhered to all applicable standards in terms of examinatins, testing, referral, etc.  and just made an incorrect judgment. (it's also extremely unlikely a doctor would tell a patient that it is certain he will die within a set period.)

      It might be more analogous to look at a scenario where an attorney said you have such a small chance of winning and the costs will be so high it's in your best interest to dismiss and then someone with a very similar case won a large judgment.

      In any event,  as doctor or lawyer, in any of the scenarios, i'd notify my insurer right away.

    Parent

    Too funny (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:01:31 AM EST
    The things that some people value and how we all choose to live and die seem to be quite varied.

    Since this clown is suing.... (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 11:57:03 AM EST
    I guess he rather the original diagnosis be correct and be dead.  Go figure....

    Parent
    Well "apprehension" of injury (none / 0) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 12:05:56 PM EST
      can be basis for damges in some scenarios.

      There have, for example, been cases where people have successfully received damages for toxic exposures that have not yet resulted in , and may not result in, provable injury in fact. Some courts have recognized that fearing one will develop cancer or some other disease due to exposure to a known causative agent is a form of injury and have upheld awards of damages including damages for the "apprehension" and for future medical bills expected to be incurred to monitor whether a disease does ensue and have also required funds to be established to pay for treatment if people do in fact become sick in the future.

     

    Parent

    Its called "wrongful life." (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 01:53:09 PM EST


    Parent
    "wrongful life" (none / 0) (#30)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:29:48 PM EST
      is generally used to refer to an action where the suit is premised on an allegation that a doctor was negligent in allowing the birth of a disabled chils where if the parents had been informed prior to birth they would have aborted.

    Parent
    Also, I've tied your tubes. You won't get (none / 0) (#32)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:45:09 PM EST
    pregnant.  Hey doc, how about YOU pay the college tuition?

    Parent
    Yes that too (none / 0) (#33)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:50:46 PM EST
      but not cases where there was a mistaken diagnosis of "you're gonna die."

    Parent
    Any case law on these facts? (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Tue May 08, 2007 at 02:54:06 PM EST


    Parent
    you mean? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 03:01:41 PM EST
       a suit for  damages arising from a guy going on a spending spree after an incorrect diagnosis he is going to die and the claiming the doctor is liable for the money he spent?

      I've never heard of any such cases but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

      It seems pretty far-fetched as a theory of liability but who knows? As for damages his claim seems suspect  because in fact the guy didn't lose property, he merely converted certain forms of property to others.

    If this guy wins his suit would that mean (none / 0) (#41)
    by Freewill on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:08:47 PM EST
    that everyone who is promised the end of the world by their religious leader by a date certain, they strongly believe that their religious leader is absolutely correct and they decide to give all their worldly possessions to the church in order to purchase a golden ticket, can they sue the church or the religious leader for a false claim?

    If a doctor is held to such high standards of having to be 100% correct all the time; why do some Doctors and hospital policies require Doctors to work in hospitals sometimes for shifts lasting 36 hours?

    I don't know about you but I have a few questions about both the doctor and the patient.

    1. Does the doctor have any type of speech problems?

    2. Does the patient have any hearing problems?

    3. Has the patient ever displayed or been diagnosed with any mental illnesses especially hypochondria?

    4. Was the patient restrained in any way from seeking a second opinion?

    5. Did the patient open any new lines of credit?

    6. Did the doctor put it in writing that the said patient would be dead by a date certain?

    Just to name a few of the numerous questions that need to be presented before coming to a conclusion on an issue like this.

    In conclusion, I have to say that for once and I'm sure there will be many more occasions for this to be true, I have to give props to Jim for the valid point! I agree with you Jim! Very nicely stated!

     

    Just to elaborate (none / 0) (#43)
    by Freewill on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:54:43 PM EST
    Could there have been a miscommunication between the Doctor and Patient in any way. All to often communications between the giving and receiving parties can be misconstrued.

    For example:
    Doctor: "Well, I have good news and I have bad news, which do you want first?"

    Patent's thoughts: "He's giving me a good news/bad news question. This is never good. I should have him give me the bad news first to get it out of the way."

    Patient: "Doc, (pause and a gulp) give me the bad news first"

    Doctor: "Well, you've been coming here for a while now. We've run all these tests and I've really admired the fortitude you had."

    Patent's Thoughts interrupting the Doctors ill advised message delivery tactic: "Oh my gawd, he just used the past tense version of have. Had, Had, Had! Holy crap look out Ethel here I come!"

    Doctor's never stopped and continuous statement to the patient: "... fortitude you had. It's with my displeasure to tell you, you will not have to ever come back to see me again. However, I would like to check in on you in a year to see how things turned out."

    Patients Crazed Thoughts: "Never! He's never going to see me again! I only have a year to live"

    Patient: "Only a year?"

    Doctor: "A year should just about do it"

    Patient: "Please Doc, what's the good news?"

    Doctor: "I just lowered my car insurance!" (Laughter from the Doctor.)

    Patent's Thoughts: "Holy crap, I am dying. Those commercials have really bad situations that have punch lines just like this. I'm Dying!"

    Doctor: (still laughing at his self inflated sense of humor and getting caught up in his own quick of a wit, gets side tracked by the patient who is now leaving the room)

    Patient Reacts: (after just receiving a bad communication from the doctor, realizes that a year is an extremely short period of time and now appreciates every second of the day much more than he ever has before. In his hurry to live life to its fullest he quickly tries to leave the doctors office to start his new found appreciation for what life is left in him)

    Patient: <turns back towards the doc while exiting the room> "Well Doc, I guess there's not much more you can do. I guess you'll have to see me in a year or so to see how it all turned out. Thanks for everything (thinks in mind - "yeah, thanks for nothing!)

    Doctor: (to busy admiring himself doesn't pick up on the patients underwhelming tone in his comments) "See ya then"

    ------------------ End of Bad Communication Scenario -----------------

    There is never 100% certainty between how some people communicate a message and how some people will receive and interpret the message.

    Is the Doctor still responsible for the actions of the patient after the patient leaves his office?

    Parent

    I suspect (none / 0) (#42)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue May 08, 2007 at 09:17:58 PM EST
     there won't be a lawsuit and the guy is hoping the publicity will cause a few kind-hearted folks to give him money after being moved by his plight.

     As I said, it's an "interesting" theory but that doesn't make it a promising one. (Plus I now  note that the story says he was told he would "probably" die in two years not that he "would" die.

    You're Gonna Live! I'm Gonna Sue! | 44 comments (44 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment