Why I would not invite lawyers to my house for dinner.

[Sue U]

I ve learned a lot here in the last couple of days. I m a racist idiot!

I don't know whether you're a racist, but if you don't put on a seat belt EVERY TIME you get in the car you are certainly an idiot. What possible reason could you have for not doing it? Are you "sticking it to the man" by flouting the law?

[Scooter]

I remember having that conversation with someone on the Darwin Awards Forum years ago, asking exactly what he could be doing while driving that a seatbelt prevented him from doing. Everything he mentioned involved taking one's eyes off the road, including my favourite - bending over to retrieve something that had rolled behind the pedals. What, would he use a periscope to watch the road while his head was crammed beneath the dashboard?

[Guinevere]

CP is right -- to be valid, a risk assessment needs to consider both the severity of the hazard and the frequency of occurrence. Even if the frequency is low, if the severity is high, then the risk will be higher as well.

As for physicians not taking sufficient care of organ donors, I can assure you that in an emergency situation, most physicians have no idea of the organ donation status of the person on the gurney/table. Neither do most first responders. And in the absence of direct knowledge to the contrary, the default is always resuscitation. If you've ever seen a Code Blue team at work (and I have, twice, in the last year), you would never forget it and you'd be impressed with how they don't like to give up. Ask @w, she will tell you she's been ordered to keep working on patients 20 minutes after their hearts quit beating .....

A dinner with a lot of lawyers is always fun, and always entertaining. Now that I've disposed of the plaintiff at my hearing this morning -- after listening to my case and hearing the Commissioner tell him he had a snowball's chance in hell of winning, he decided to dismiss all his claims -- perhaps I've got time to gin up a totally bogus and time-consuming lawsuit, to line my pockets, at said dinner <insert evil laugh here>

And Sue, bring it on! I've gotten plaintiff's experts excluded for their speculative and unfounded conclusions -- so your threats don't scare me in the least <insert second evil laugh here>

[wesw]

I think the same thing every time I see someone driving a smart car. what kind of idiot would drive that little toy in traffic?

lol. my days of sticking it to the man are long gone. I was quite good at it once tho. ... no, not that way!

when I m driving leisurely thru the country side I don t always wear my seat belt. so sue me....

sometimes I hang my head out the window like a dog too, but I always wear safety glasses for that.

[Joe Guy]

wesw out on a leisurely drive...

[oldr_n_wsr]

what kind of idiot would drive that little toy in traffic?

I'm guessing motorcycles are out?

[Sue U]

And Sue, bring it on! I've gotten plaintiff's experts excluded for their speculative and unfounded conclusions -- so your threats don't scare me in the least <insert second evil laugh here>

I can do this all day, sister:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In this personal injury and wrongful death action arising from a multiple-vehicle accident on the New Jersey Turnpike, defendants John Driver and XYZ Limousine Service, Inc. have proffered three expert witnesses to supply testimony in their respective fields of forensic pathology, biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction. However, the opinions offered by each are profoundly flawed in that, for the reasons described herein, they are either plainly beyond the scope of the witness’s expertise, internally contradictory, wholly unsupported by the facts of the case, entirely speculative and/or completely lacking any identified basis in scientific research, methodology or literature. Consequently, plaintiff here moves to bar these purported experts from testifying at trial as being incompetent to offer the opinions expressed in their reports and/or providing mere “net opinion” testimony which is inadmissible.

<insert maniacal cackle here>

[oldr_n_wsr]

I've been rear ended twice in rescent years and both times 100% fault was placed on the person who hit me. But there were no injuries. Seems when there are injuries, blame gets spread all over the place. No fault=everyones fault.

[TPFKA@W]

As for physicians not taking sufficient care of organ donors, I can assure you that in an emergency situation, most physicians have no idea of the organ donation status of the person on the gurney/table. Neither do most first responders. And in the absence of direct knowledge to the contrary, the default is always resuscitation. If you've ever seen a Code Blue team at work (and I have, twice, in the last year), you would never forget it and you'd be impressed with how they don't like to give up. Ask @w, she will tell you she's been ordered to keep working on patients 20 minutes after their hearts quit beating .....

I have seen wesw make this comment before and it was just too tin foil beany for me to even take it seriously let alone address it.

Clearly the only people I would neglect during a code are lawyers.

[Guinevere]

As if you could tell (absent a suit, a briefcase, and track shoes for the ambulance chasing) . . . .

[Guinevere]

And Sue, bring it on! I've gotten plaintiff's experts excluded for their speculative and unfounded conclusions -- so your threats don't scare me in the least <insert second evil laugh here>

I can do this all day, sister:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
In this personal injury and wrongful death action arising from a multiple-vehicle accident on the New Jersey Turnpike, defendants John Driver and XYZ Limousine Service, Inc. have proffered three expert witnesses to supply testimony in their respective fields of forensic pathology, biomechanical engineering and accident reconstruction. However, the opinions offered by each are profoundly flawed in that, for the reasons described herein, they are either plainly beyond the scope of the witness’s expertise, internally contradictory, wholly unsupported by the facts of the case, entirely speculative and/or completely lacking any identified basis in scientific research, methodology or literature. Consequently, plaintiff here moves to bar these purported experts from testifying at trial as being incompetent to offer the opinions expressed in their reports and/or providing mere “net opinion” testimony which is inadmissible.

<insert maniacal cackle here>

Cut and paste, cut and paste. Two can, and will, play that game!

[TPFKA@W]

As if you could tell (absent a suit, a briefcase, and track shoes for the ambulance chasing) . . . .

When you peel their eyelid up to flash your penlight on the pupils to check for a response you can see a small pentagram in the pupil of the left eye. You can try this on your coworkers. But they have to be unconscious for it to work.

No really.

[Guinevere]

I thought it was the right eye????

[BoSoxGal]

I'll have to remember not to carry my Bar card next time I'm driving through Indiana, just in case I end up in @w's ER.


I'll be headed east for my front row seat to Guin's Client v. Sue's Client, a trial I wouldn't miss for anything!

[BoSoxGal]

I've been rear ended twice in rescent years and both times 100% fault was placed on the person who hit me. But there were no injuries. Seems when there are injuries, blame gets spread all over the place. No fault=everyones fault.

That's because in most jurisdictions (as I recall from law school - Sue will supplement, I'm sure) rear-end collisions are almost always attributed to the driver striking from behind, unless s/he has a 'reasonable explanation' (like, I slid on black ice) to account for the inability to stop the vehicle before striking the car ahead.

Even if the car ahead stops abruptly, that isn't an acceptable excuse because one is always supposed to maintain a safe stopping distance between vehicles in case of that very occurrence - for instance, because the vehicle in front has to stop short for a child running into the road, etc.

[TPFKA@W]

I thought it was the right eye????

Nope, definitely the left, thus the title ocular sinistra, the sinister eye. It was named in Latin to sneek it past lay people.

I know you think I am making this up.

[Guinevere]

Oh well, if it has a latin name I'm completely convinced its real. You know, because the medical profession wouldn't possibly use latin (or greek) names for anything.

[Sue U]

I've been rear ended twice in rescent years and both times 100% fault was placed on the person who hit me. But there were no injuries. Seems when there are injuries, blame gets spread all over the place. No fault=everyones fault.

That's because in most jurisdictions (as I recall from law school - Sue will supplement, I'm sure) rear-end collisions are almost always attributed to the driver striking from behind, unless s/he has a 'reasonable explanation' (like, I slid on black ice) to account for the inability to stop the vehicle before striking the car ahead.

Even if the car ahead stops abruptly, that isn't an acceptable excuse because one is always supposed to maintain a safe stopping distance between vehicles in case of that very occurrence - for instance, because the vehicle in front has to stop short for a child running into the road, etc.

The only "reasonable explanations" for striking the car ahead of you are (1) "I had an epileptic seizure, brain aneurysm, stroke or other unexpected sudden-onset incapacitation that made me physically incapable of moving my foot to the brake pedal," and (2) "The car in front of me backed up right into me."

oldr: "No fault" (also known as "PIP") is a particular type of auto insurance coverage on your policy that covers your MVA-related medical expenses regardless of whose fault the accident was. This (in theory) allows you to get necessary treatment paid for without having to sue an at-fault party for your medical bills. However, under this system, your auto insurance company will then go after the at-fault party or his/her insurer to recover those covered expenses.

Oh well, if it has a latin name I'm completely convinced its real. You know, because the medical profession wouldn't possibly use latin (or greek) names for anything.

My torts prof was fond of saying, "When they start using Latin phrases, hold on tight to your wallet!"

[wesw]

just where have you seen me make that comment before?

[TPFKA@W]

just where have you seen me make that comment before?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=11729&p=145251#p145251

Re: Healthcare rationing

Postby wesw » Sat Aug 23, 2014 12:34 pm
i was a donor for most of my life. since i first got my license in 1984 or 85. then i heard about some unscrupulous doctors who would not try real hard to save some donors in order to give others their organs. i changed my status on my last license renewal.

wesw

Posts: 151
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2014 9:24 pm