Karen Kaplan wrote:
> Malpractice is much harder to sue for than we think - only 1 in 65 cases of
> proven malpractice actually file suit - mostly because the lawyers can be so
> choosy. They seem to want the easy ones to prove with big $.
> I established that my surgeon failed to provide the proper standard of care
> when she ignored my high pre-admission prothrombin time and proceeded to
> surgery. That is the 1st and most critical step: failure to provide
> standard of care. That finally got a lawyer to agree to even review my
> case!
> The 2nd step is to prove that this failure caused harm. The 3rd step is
> that the harm caused $ damages. I had an agressive New York lawyer review
> my case - he declined because it was too difficult. When I suggested it was
> time to set a precedent on ARD, he said the medical establishment wouldn't
> let that happen. Adhesions are difficult because they are a common
> outcome of many types of surgeries.
>
> You cannot imagine how I reacted to this women in NY whose ob/gyn carved his
> initials on her after he delivered her baby by C-section. Said he did such
> a beautiful job that he had to sign it! Now claims to have a form of
> Alzheimer's.
> She just settled for $1.75 million (expletive deleted)! And the Manhattan
> DA has filed assault charges!. I'd trade places with her in a heartbeat if
> it meant I'd only have scars on the outside, and I'm sure all of you feel
> the same. When I asked this lawyer why this was malpractice, he said - it
> was easy to prove and she was going to be traumatized every day she saw
> those scars.
> I told him that I am traumatized every minute I am awake because of the
> constant pain from my last surgery and what is happening inside.
> I am thinking of going to the NY Times on this one - it's so absurd, and
> criminal, to deny that ARD causes pain and suffering and then treat such
> vandalism as malpractice.
> What do you all think?
> Karen
>> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Helen Dynda <olddad66@runestone.net>
> To: Multiple recipients of list ADHESIONS <adhesions@forum.obgyn.net>
> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2000 6:27 PM
> Subject: Patient Advocacy and Insurance -- websites
>
> > **[ Patient Advocacy and Insurance ]**
> >
> > 1.) * Patient Told Illness in Her Head Forced to Leave HMO to Get Proper
> > Care
> >
> > http://consumerwatchdog.org/public_hts/medical/casofday/me100013.htm
> >
> > 2.) * HMO Stonewalling Woman Costs Woman Fertility
> >
> > http://consumerwatchdog.org/public_hts/medical/casualty/connie.htm
> >
> > 3.) * The HMO Page (sponsored by The National Organization of Physicians
> Who
> > Care)
> >
> > http://www.hmopage.org/
> >
> > 4.) * Managed Care Reform - How Texas Pulled Off What Washington Can't
> >
> > http://www.managedcaremag.com/archiveMC/9902/9902.states.shtml
> >
> > 5.) * Summary of Medical Malpractice Law in Texas
> >
> > http://www.mcandl.com/texas.html
> >
> > 6.) * Decoding Medical Acronyms
> >
> > http://www.patientadvocacy.org/main/insurance/acronyms.html
> >
> > 7.) * The Patient Advocacy Page - Promoting fairness and equality in our
> > health care system
> >
> > http://people.delphi.com/graphking/health.htm
> >
> > 8.) * Managed Care Showdown in Texas
> >
> > http://www.physiciansnews.com/cover/299.html
> >
> > 9.) * National Organization of Physicians Who Care
> >
> > http://www.pwc.org/
> >
> > 10.) * Your Money & Your Life - America's Managed Care Revolution (PBS
> > Special)
> >
> > http://www.wnet.org/archive/mhc/index.html
> >
>