Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I fully understand. What I disagree with you on is your assumption that the doctor and hospital are guilty for the mere fact that the judge allowed the suit to proceed. There is NO assumption of guilt by simply allowing a case to proceed. If that were the case, why proceed to trial? That also does NOT mean that this case isn't in fact frivolous. Are you telling me that all frivolous lawsuits are thrown out prior to trial? Hahaha, no, they are not.
Innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law.
Perhaps we should look up the actual complaint filed in the circuit clerk of courts.
Do you perchance work for the ACLU?
either that or he was the victim on medical malpractice, I'm guessing.
Savicki, whose children are aged 3 to 21, said she’s been unfairly judged. She says she had eight of her nine children while in committed relationships.
I suggest the other half of her committed relationships help pay for her decision to have such a large family, as well as herself. It is a shame that she expects to pull at the heart strings of society for such selfish acts. Obviously she received no direction from her own parents and sadly she probably will not provide direction for her own children. She will be on welfare most of her adult life - a sad scenario considering how many young poor women with one or two children try to work themselves off of the welfare system.
If the operation the doctors performed was in error - I think subconsciously it was not - and I for one would have assisted in the operation. That is one person I don't want to hear say "Oops, I did it again". The whole thing disgusts me.
The woman receives public assistance for TWO of her 9 children. TWO. Certainly you don't really think that some guy in a long ago "committed relationship" is going to pay child support, do you? The courts have a hard enough time collecting child support from LEGAL biological fathers who divorce the mothers.
It is a shame that she expects to "pull on the heartstrings" of society for her situation, however, I would suggest that self-defense is rather natural when you're being attacked. Even if she does not have the self-awareness to understand that NOBODY is going to understand her situation or care what happened to her, she's going to instinctively try to defend herself.
I'm surprised to see you say that you would personally have assisted in the FORCED sterilization of a woman in this country. What happened to individual freedoms and individual rights? Would you seriously advocate for the forced sterilization of ANY WOMAN in this country?
I find it hilarious (and sad) that people flip out at welfare queens, but aren't completely outraged at incompetent CEOs getting their bonuses and ridiculous compensation.
The woman receives public assistance for TWO of her 9 children. TWO. Certainly you don't really think that some guy in a long ago "committed relationship" is going to pay child support, do you? The courts have a hard enough time collecting child support from LEGAL biological fathers who divorce the mothers.
It is a shame that she expects to "pull on the heartstrings" of society for her situation, however, I would suggest that self-defense is rather natural when you're being attacked. Even if she does not have the self-awareness to understand that NOBODY is going to understand her situation or care what happened to her, she's going to instinctively try to defend herself.
I'm surprised to see you say that you would personally have assisted in the FORCED sterilization of a woman in this country. What happened to individual freedoms and individual rights? Would you seriously advocate for the forced sterilization of ANY WOMAN in this country?
She may currently be getting assistance for the two children in her custody -- however, unless her children have been adopted out they too are the recepients of welfare. In this case the grandmother is getting money from the state to raise this irresponsible sluts children. We are paying whether to the mom or the grandmother.
I find it hilarious (and sad) that people flip out at welfare queens, but aren't completely outraged at incompetent CEOs getting their bonuses and ridiculous compensation.
How about the payraise our 'representatives' have given themselves at our expense? Too much money going out and as a country we are being bled dry.
No the children should have been sent to families who wouldn't end up raising another generation of welfare whelps.
And why is someone who is essentially living on taxpayer funds supposed to just have one after another after another? I said she may well have a case. I don't know but there is a history of a prior lawsuit so who knows? The judge may be willing to hear the case, he may not.
I don't look well on someone who knows how to play the system and trust me she does.
She may currently be getting assistance for the two children in her custody -- however, unless her children have been adopted out they too are the recepients of welfare. In this case the grandmother is getting money from the state to raise this irresponsible sluts children. We are paying whether to the mom or the grandmother.
I don't recall reading that. Maybe the grandmother can afford them. I'm not defending the woman. I'm just saying, I don't know that the grandmother is necessarily on govt. aid.
but it COULD be and probably was. Are you perfect? Have you never lost a piece of paper or typed the wrong letter? You obviously have had a personal experience like this, and your opinion is based on that. It is not logical to say the doctors made a mistake but not admit that the file clerk could have made one.
I didn't write the laws and I didn't create the legal system. What I'm saying is that unfortunately mistakes like that can indeed cost people money.
The QUESTION of fact which a jury will have to answer is did, in fact, this woman ever file a consent form?
If the doctors and hospital cannot prove that she did, then the Plaintiff wins. However, the defendants can do all sort of things to attempt to prove that the woman did sign a consent form. They can have witnesses, like, for example, the person who actually gave the woman the form to sign, could testify that she gave the woman the form. That person, if they were to actually REMEMBER that particular incident, could testify that they SAW the woman sign the form. They could testify what they then did with the form, where they took it, to whom they gave it. Then the defense could try to get testimony from every person who could remember ever seeing that document. That's how they'll probably try to prove that the document existed in the first place. BUT, if the people who were involved in getting the paperwork signed and filed cannot remember that specific case, then the docs and hosptial are in trouble.
That's how a case falls out. INVESTIGATION into the facts.
The best proof that the woman signed a consent form would be the acutal consent form itself. BUT they can't find it, so they suffer the consequences for losting such a critical legal document.
Additionally, if either of the doctors or the nurses saw the SIGNED consent form, even though they are parties, and their testimony would not carry as much weight as a non-interested witness, the doctors could testify that they saw the document. There will probably be a big investigaton into the entire history of the said signed consent form. If the defendants cannot find anything to substantiate their claim that the woman signed the consent form, I just don't know what their defense will be, but I would guess it would be complicated or smoke screen-ish.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. I'm taking this at face value. I'm seeing that a medical malpractice lawsuit has been file, allegations that a surgical procedure was performed with was not authorized, and UNFORTUNATELY for the defendants, they do not have the signed consent form.
HOW MANY of those signed consent forms do you think a hospital or medical practice loses each year? Isn't it just a little odd that THIS ONE PARTICULAR consent form was lost? The ONE FORM where there was a procedure which the Plainfiff is claiming was not authorized was lost.
It will be interesting if this case goes to trial to see what really happened. However, if the defendants cannot mount a good defense, they will probably settle and most likely no one will ever know what happened. I think in these kinds of cases, settlements usually involve a court order that no one talk about the terms of the settlement. That protects the hospital, doctors, and insurance companies.
I didn't write the laws and I didn't create the legal system. What I'm saying is that unfortunately mistakes like that can indeed cost people money.
The QUESTION of fact which a jury will have to answer is did, in fact, this woman ever file a consent form?
If the doctors and hospital cannot prove that she did, then the Plaintiff wins. However, the defendants can do all sort of things to attempt to prove that the woman did sign a consent form. They can have witnesses, like, for example, the person who actually gave the woman the form to sign, could testify that she gave the woman the form. That person, if they were to actually REMEMBER that particular incident, could testify that they SAW the woman sign the form. They could testify what they then did with the form, where they took it, to whom they gave it. Then the defense could try to get testimony from every person who could remember ever seeing that document. That's how they'll probably try to prove that the document existed in the first place. BUT, if the people who were involved in getting the paperwork signed and filed cannot remember that specific case, then the docs and hosptial are in trouble.
That's how a case falls out. INVESTIGATION into the facts.
The best proof that the woman signed a consent form would be the acutal consent form itself. BUT they can't find it, so they suffer the consequences for losting such a critical legal document.
Additionally, if either of the doctors or the nurses saw the SIGNED consent form, even though they are parties, and their testimony would not carry as much weight as a non-interested witness, the doctors could testify that they saw the document. There will probably be a big investigaton into the entire history of the said signed consent form. If the defendants cannot find anything to substantiate their claim that the woman signed the consent form, I just don't know what their defense will be, but I would guess it would be complicated or smoke screen-ish.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. I'm taking this at face value. I'm seeing that a medical malpractice lawsuit has been file, allegations that a surgical procedure was performed with was not authorized, and UNFORTUNATELY for the defendants, they do not have the signed consent form.
HOW MANY of those signed consent forms do you think a hospital or medical practice loses each year? Isn't it just a little odd that THIS ONE PARTICULAR consent form was lost? The ONE FORM where there was a procedure which the Plainfiff is claiming was not authorized was lost.
It will be interesting if this case goes to trial to see what really happened. However, if the defendants cannot mount a good defense, they will probably settle and most likely no one will ever know what happened. I think in these kinds of cases, settlements usually involve a court order that no one talk about the terms of the settlement. That protects the hospital, doctors, and insurance companies.
And I'm not trying to guess the outcome of the actual court case. All I'm saying is that it is WAY more likely that the form was signed, whether she knew it or not, and it was lost, than that the docs actually performed the procedure w/o having the form. That would be true no matter what this person's history was. the fact that she filed a lawsuit once before about expired spermicide, dropped out of HS in 9th grade, and has had 9 kids over the last 20 years with ? # of dads only hurts her credibility IMO. Plus the weird IUD story...
I don't recall reading that. Maybe the grandmother can afford them. I'm not defending the woman. I'm just saying, I don't know that the grandmother is necessarily on govt. aid.
It's my understanding as long as their mother is their legal guardian, the children would be on state aid regardless of who is taking care of them. Kind of like foster care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
