Re: New precedent in medical malpractice claims ?
Posted by Curmudgeon on 11/12/08

There is nothing quite so scary as an angry, unstable, bald
guy. It's like Uncle Fester on PCP.

On 11/12/08, john36 wrote:
> I say most Hair Transplant Surgeons brake the law and
> violate patients rights ALL THE TIME EVERY TIME they
> perform HT surgery.
> It is assertion pertaining to the VAST majority of HT
> (hair transplant) surgeons. In fact I don't know of any HT
> surgeon who does not exercise habitual practices
> prohibited by law as I will describe in my post.
> I am 35 years old male and I live in OH.HT surgeon, his
> name is Paul Weiss performed hair transplant surgery on me
> on the 06/28/07.I suffered injuries and disfigurement that
> caused me depression, emotional and physical pain and
> humiliating appearance. Those injuries are caused because
> surgeons reckless conduct and deliberate violation of OH
> Laws.
> You can read the full story here
> http://hair-restoration-
> info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2566060861/m/5981000204
> http://hair-restoration-
> info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7466060861/m/2261058104 posted
> on hair transplant network.com.
> That site is apparently the most respected of its kind,
> where the USA TOP Hair Transplant surgeons comment on
> topics and regullary post them selves.
>
> I became a member (my screen name there is john36)and
> presented my horror HT story to that community, with
> pictures,dates,names,description of facts ,events and said
> that I can prove everything that I claim.
>
> I posted a question to the HT surgeons, that I vas a
> victim of butchered HT surgery and seek answer to the
> questions that I list bellow so I can intelligently decide
> whom of them to choose.
> The questions were very justifiable and reasonable. I
> asked them do they respect patient rights or they also
> break the laws and violate patient rights. I did not want
> to be abused again. These are the questions:
> Dear HT surgeons
>
> 1.How many of you personally evaluate the patient
> sufficiently so you could formulate an appropriate pre-
> operative diagnosis, and how many of you use "consultant"
> non medical person to do it for you? In addition and
> related to this how many of you explain pros and cons of
> HT surgery so patient intelligently can decide about his
> options (informed consent) and how many of you give that
> to the "consultant" as well?
> 2. How many of you perform or personally supervise all
> aspects of the surgery? Including placement of the grafts
> in the receptor sites? And how many of you carve the
> patient, take the strip, suture the wound, make incisions
> (holes) in patient head and then leave the surgical room
> and patient and leave the rest to the "surgical
> technicians”? Do you have in other words, aspects of the
> surgery outside of your supervision performed or
> supervised by another qualified surgeon with the consent
> of the patient?
> 3. How many of you fail to personally perform post-
> operative medical care? How many of you delegate post-
> operative medical care to a non-qualified medical
> professional or to a non medical professional at all?
> 4. Do you recklessly delegate medical tasks in violation
> of the Administrative Codes in your states?
> 5.Does any of you negligently and recklessly delegate the
> tasks of selecting the donor site to harvest the hair
> follicles for transplant in the preceptor site by letting
> the "surgical technicians” choose the location of the same
> by shaving and preparing patient just before surgery?
> 6.Do you and how many of you negligently and recklessly
> and ILLEGALY delegate the tasks of administering
> anesthesia to patient to persons not qualified under your
> state law? (everywhere in USA it is a law only DOCTOR can
> administer anesthesia)
> 7. How many of you negligently and recklessly delegate the
> tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and insertion of the
> donor grafts into the surgically prepared receptor
> sites ,with your supervision ,to your "surgical
> technicians”? How many of you negligently and recklessly
> delegate the tasks of preparing the donor grafts, and
> insertion of the donor grafts into the surgically prepared
> receptor sites ,WITHOUT your supervision ,to
> your "surgical technicians” while you chill outside the
> surgical room for hours? In violation of your
> administrative laws of your state
> 8. How many of you have never seen the patient until just
> before surgery and therefore Lack Informed Consent in
> Violation of the Law in your state?
> 9. How many of you have "surgical technicians" engaged in
> the practice of medicine and surgery without the
> appropriate certificate from the State Medical Board in
> your state, in violation of the law in your state?
>
> I immediately was attacked from the forum members for
> daring to ask what I asked. Some directly and with
> insults, some with implied warnings, some
> with "empathetic" advice that I need to change my
> atitude,my focus etc.Tons of feed back that I should not
> attack the whole HT "Industry”, that there is very ethical
> doctors and infact the doctors that are ethical are
> recommended by that web network
>
> I am now to the point that I am openly warned they will
> ban me from the site if I dare speak and reveal the truth,
> hoping to warn other people not to become pray and abused
> like me.
> .
> However NOT EVEN ONE doctor,HT surgeon there, or "member"
> said "No we don't brake those laws, of course we don’t,
> such conducts are illegal”. No one.Here is the list of the
> doctors recommended by the network:
> "This is our full list of the best hair transplant
> surgeons. (Our selection criteria)"
>
> Dr. Scott Alexander Arizona USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Bernardino Arocha Texas USA
> Dr. Alfonso Barrera Texas USA
> Dr. Michael Beehner New York USA
> Dr. Robert M. Bernstein New York USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Timothy Carman California USA
> Dr. Glenn Charles Florida USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Ivan Cohen Connecticut USA
> Dr. Jerry Cooley North Carolina USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Robert Dorin New York USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Jeffrey Epstein Florida USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Herbert Feinberg New Jersey USA
> Dr. Alan Feller New York USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Jack Fisher Tennessee USA
> Dr. Steven Gabel Oregon USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Christopher Gencheff Wisconsin USA
> Dr. Edmond Griffin Georgia USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Robert Haber Ohio USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Jim Harris Colorado USA
> Dr. Sheldon S. Kabaker California USA
> Dr. Sharon Keene Arizona USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Richard S. Keller Illanois USA
> Dr. Raymond Konior Illinois USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Bradley Limmer Texas USA Coalition Member
> Dr. William Lindsey Virginia USA
> Dr. Ricardo Mejia Florida USA
> Dr. Michael Meshkin California USA
> Dr. Bernard Nusbaum Florida USA Coalition Member
> Dr. William Parsley Kentucky USA
> Dr. Vito Quatela New York USA
> Dr. Bill Rassman California USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Bill Reed California USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Paul Rose Florida USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Brandon Ross California USA
> Dr. Lawrence Samuels Missouri USA
> Dr. Ron Shapiro Minnesota USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Paul Shapiro Minnesota USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Ken Siporin California USA
> Dr. Martin Tessler Michigan USA Coalition Member
> Dr. Robert True New York USA Coalition Member
> Dr. James E. Vogel Maryland USA Coalition Member
> South America Coalition Member
> Dr. Jean Devroye Belguim Europe Coalition Member
> Dr. Bessam Farjo United Kingdom Europe Coalition Member
> Dr. Nilofer Farjo United Kingdom Europe Coalition Member
> Dr. Bijan Feriduni Belgium Europe Coalition Member
> Dr. Melike Külahçi Turkey Europe
> Dr. John Gillespie Alberta Canada
> Dr. Victor Hasson British Columbia Canada Coalition Member
> Dr. Thomas Nakatsui Alberta Canada Coalition Member
> Dr. H. Rahal Ontario Canada Coalition Member
> Dr. Marla Rosenberg Ontario Canada
> Dr. Jerry Wong British Columbia Canada Coalition Member
> Dr. Humayun Mohmand Pakistan Asia
> Dr. Damkerng Pathomvanich Thailand Asia "
>
>
>
> You may ask your self why is that and read this bellow so
> you may get the idea.
>
>
> This is what I wrote to that community asking the doctors
> to respond and response was again silence
>
> By nature I have always been trusting people first before
> I don’t. I changed. I am rightfully upset at the HT "Club"
> of surgeons. I will tell you why.
> I understand, to protect them selves from people who are
> out here to sue a doctor without merit ,doctors lobby, was
> successful to push legislature that would shield them from
> merit less law suits. The law makers and the doctors
> community agreed to implement the instrument that law
> requires the filing of an affidavit of merit in a civil
> suit for medical negligence. In providing an affidavit of
> merit, a doctor would not be attesting to the truth of the
> factual events surrounding the surgery. Rather, he would
> be stating that in his opinion, based upon taking an oral
> history of the patient, examination of the patient, and
> review of the patient's medical records, it is his opinion
> within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the
> standard of care was breached.
> That is fine. But it is before your eyes guys.I am telling
> you the story, about everything, from the lack of informed
> consent, the actual butchery, to the removal of the
> sutures. Three prominent HT surgeons did not want to sign
> an affidavit of merit although they like you know I was
> abused big time. I did not ask them to testify and go to
> courts. I asked them to examine me and tell me in writing
> their opinion within a reasonable degree of medical
> certainty that the standard of care was breached. Not to
> say definately,yes it was breached, but according what we
> see in patient and his med records med negligence might
> very well had occured.No one wants to do that.
> Now look they had their shield for merit less law suits
> for their protection implemented in the law system. But
> that also gave them duty that in case ,like mine is, they
> need to be ethical and tell the truth, so the patient can
> seek relief against the doctor that breached the
> standard.HT surgeons now abuse that right and do not give
> an affidavit of merit although they know, like you know, I
> was abused big time. Now that realy drives me crazy. I
> should not hold Weiss accountable so he can do it again
> and again and again to other people?
> NO.I say no. I say HT surgeons, I know you visit this web
> site, raise your voice and stand behind what you claim,
> that not all HT doctors are corrupt."
> Silence........
>
> I wrote this:
> If one read my previous post one would notice that
> described conducts (by commission and omission) are
> violations of certain laws (either administrative laws of
> medical boards or the Law codes of the states).Now that
> premise considered I will try to argue, what was never
> argued before. In most medical malpractice Law suits
> plaintiff needs a doctor to state in writing that in that
> doctors opinion his colleague breached the standard of
> care. That is necessary (in most cases) element to FILE
> claim for med malpractice. Most doctors in the
> HT "industry" unfortunately brake all those things that I
> mentioned in my previous post, although illegal, they do
> brake them. So when one, like for example me, goes to
> other HT doctors and tells them the story, no HT doctor
> wants to sign affidavit of merit (because I assume such
> conducts are epidemic in the HT industry).Thus, grieved
> patient, can not even start the law suit, because does not
> have the element of affidavit of merit from another doctor
> that the standard of care was breached. That is why there
> is NOT MANY LAW SUITS AGAINST HT DOCTORS, they protect
> each other by the simple fact that it is almost impossible
> to find HT doctor willing to testify against another. That
> has been exceedingly successful shield they have against
> law suits.However,I will try to argue something that never
> was argued before. Like I said in most cases expert is
> needed to testify in Med malpractice case. But not all
> cases. it is well-settled with the Courts that expert
> testimony is required only when the asserted negligence
> does not lie within the jury's comprehension as a matter
> of common knowledge, when the applicable standard of care
> is not a matter of common knowledge, and when the jury
> must have the assistance of experts to decide the issue of
> negligence.Robson v. Tinnin, 322 Ark. 605, 911 S.W.2d246
> (1995) (citing Prater v. St. Paul Ins. Co., 293 Ark. 547,
> 739S.W.2d 676 (1987)). To emphasize that expert testimony
> is notrequired in every medical-malpractice case per se,
> we repeat astatement from Graham v. Sisco, 248 Ark. 6, 449
> S.W.2d 949 (1970),that was quoted in Davis v. Kemp, 252
> Ark. 925, 481 S.W.2d 712(1972):The necessity for the
> introduction of expert medical testimony in malpractice
> cases was exhaustively considered in Lanier v. Trammell,
> 207 Ark. 372, 180 S.W.2d 818 (1944). There we held that
> expert testimony is not required when the asserted
> negligence lies within the comprehension of a jury of
> laymen, such as a surgeon's failure to sterilize his
> instruments or to remove a sponge from the incision before
> closing it. On the other hand, when the applicable
> standard of care is not a matter of common knowledge the
> jury must have the assistance of expert witnesses in
> coming to a conclusion upon the issue of negligence.Id. at
> 926, 481 S.W.2d 712-13. This court has consistently
> appliedthis rule of law from the landmark case of Lanier
> to cases arisingunder the Arkansas Medical Malpractice
> Act. See, e.g., Robson, 322Ark. 605, 911 S.W.2d 246. In
> other words, why need an expert when it is obvious that
> negligence or recklessness or even intend to purposely
> disfigure is obvious to a common guy" That doctrine in the
> law is called res ipsa loquitur ...Now, The one who sue
> (plaintiff) has to show to the court, without any expert
> that1) That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at
> the time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of
> the condition causing the injury, under the exclusive
> management and control of the defendant; "(2) that the
> injury occurred under such circumstances that in the
> ordinary course of events it would not have occurred if
> ordinary care had been observed." Like I said HT surgeons
> will never say that another HT breached the standard
> because most of them do the same thing. But I ask this,
> Surgical facilities (not licensed),surgical staff and
> their competence as surgeons team (not licensed to
> administer anesthesia and select where doctor will carve
> patient, donor site),pre-medical consultation and
> explanation of pros and cons of surgery (done by
> consultant),Pre med diagnosis (for example, blood work not
> done),Actual carving and suturing donor site being only
> action done on patient by the surgeon and all other
> aspects of the surgery delegated to "surgical technicians"
> (non qualified licensed),postoperative treatment of wound
> infection via telephone (because most of the time patients
> and doctors are milles away)are all instrumentality in
> exclusive control of the Surgeon. The surgeon has the
> control, but he chose to abandon the control, and leave
> the pre operative diagnosis, actual surgery,post operative
> care to be performed not by him directly, not even with
> his supervision (how it is done).He makes that choice
> unilaterally (without patients consent) and illegally,
> abandoning patient in middle of surgery. So I disagree
> that "those facts are exceedingly difficult to
> satisfy/prove and one needs another HT surgeon to testify
> that the standard was breached”. The surgeons have
> control, they (some of them or most of them as you please)
> chose not to have control and surgeon had control not to
> choose to delegate his control,illegally.The second
> requirement ,The second argument that "that the injury
> occurred under such circumstances that in the ordinary
> course of events it would not have occurred if ordinary
> care had been observed." I would argue that if HT surgeon
> told patient pros and cons of surgery as he should have,
> patient might not undergo it, that if patient knew he, the
> surgeon, would not perform the surgery him self patient
> might have decided , should have not agreed to, under go
> it, If he would have chosen, because it was in his control
> to choose it, and it was his duty to choose it, the donor
> site incision, he would have chosen it in higher or lower
> position on patients head because of reasons that HT
> surgeons know where location should be and risks of
> significant scaring occurring if not positioned properly.
> If surgeon had performed, or at least supervised the
> performance of placing the grafts in the receptors
> sites ,the injury, the adverse outcome would not have
> occurred because HT surgeons know and should know how
> those grafts are placed properly in order to appear
> natural when they grow, in the direction of how hair grows
> naturally as advertised by them. Had surgeon been there he
> would know did the "surgical technicians" place all the
> grafts, or maybe only 1000 or maybe only 200.Had he ,
> (surgeon) provided qualified person to dig in the
> postoperative wound on the donors site, to try to
> recognize and find absorbable sutures, with scissors, it
> would not for example (mine example)be done by hairdresser
> lady who did not have clue what those are,digged with
> scissors 40 minutes and caused me extreme pain and
> possibly worsening the scar. No all that would not have
> occurred if ordinary care had been observed.
>
> I don't understand why is that so difficult to see. Why is
> difficult to see that I disagree that medical expert needs
> to say that all of the above must not have happened, and
> adverse effects and injury would not have happened had the
> control HT surgeons had and by law must have ,chose to
> abandon having the control, to unilateraly,and illegaly
> make that choice.Ignorantia legis non excusat -- ignorance
> of the law does not excuse. The degree of skill and
> learning ordinarily possessed and used by any members of
> the medical profession ,engaged in the same (or any) type
> of medical practice or specialty in the locality (or
> anywhere in USA)in which he practices or in a similar
> locality; first and most, makes them aware (that skill and
> learning does),that like every other member of the
> community, every citizen, by provisions of the law,
> delimits certain actions that he can or must (physicians )
> do by commission or omission.Physicians,like everyone else
> must obey the law .This is the definition of acceptable
> standard of care : The degree of skill and learning
> ordinarily possessed and used by members of the profession
> of the medical care provider in good standing, engaged in
> the same type of practice or specialty in the locality in
> which he practices or in a similar locality; So far this
> definition was interpreted by the lawyers that doctors
> only determine The degree of skill and learning.
>
> I disagree. While I agree that The degree of skill and
> learning ordinarily possessed and used by the doctors is
> determined statistically(how the majority does it) law
> provisions delimit certain actions used by doctors (even
> though if it happens that majority of them does it) as
> ILLEGAL! The Law provisions forbidding certain conduct,
> have supremacy over the Certain forbidden conducts and
> make them VOID to be considered any kind of care. They
> can't be care, they are illegal. No one ever argued the
> obvious - that violations of the things that I state above
> automatically(without the need of expert)makes those
> violations medical negligence. If any of this elements
> exist med negligence should be presumed! And the burden
> should be shifted to defendant to prove how the law which
> delimited certain actions forbidden because are considered
> dangerous for patient, can be in his case considered
> acceptable care. This argument if prevails gives a chance
> for future plaintiffs can by-pass the shield made by the
> doctors lobby which simplified is" if you wanna sue us one
> of us has to tell on the other he he he ...good lluck.
>
> Silence...........
>
> Now I decided to write this:
>
> If you are an Attorney, and read this post ,In
> particular ,my argument that ,if prima facie evidence
> exists that violations of law provisions that I state
> there (look),conducts of doctors that are considered
> illegal, must presume Med malpractice occurred and burden
> of proof (now they need expert) shifts to the doctor to
> prove how the violated laws, prohibited conducts, that the
> legislator found them dangerous to practice, can ,in the
> case of the defendant be considered acceptable standard of
> care. They are illegal. Illegal actions are forbidden to
> be standard.300 million people in USA and ton of lawyers
> don't see what I do?
> Yes Res ipsa loquitur is what I meant. And I am asking
> the attorneys to consider this argument in applying that
> doctrine across the board in EVERY malpractice civil suit,
> not just my type.
>
> 1.
> In most medical malpractice Law suits plaintiff needs a
> doctor to state in writing that in that doctors opinion
> his colleague breached the standard of care. That is
> necessary (in most cases) element to FILE claim for med
> malpractice. It is called affidavit of merit.
> 2.
> The legislator in all 50 states sanctioned certain
> conducts of physicians as illegal. I will give few
> examples :
> a)Doctor recklessly delegating medical tasks to non
> medical personnel in violation of the state laws.
> b)Abandoning patient in middle of surgery (for example
> leaving patient alone with technicians.
> c)Doctor recklessly delegating admineristering anesthesia
> to patient to individual other than doctor etc etc
>
> This kind of illegal conducts are epidemic in the field of
> Cosmetic surgery, especially in the field of Hair
> Transplant surgery. Happens all the time.
>
> Now for Res Ipsa loquitur to be applied Plaintiff has to
> prove that
> 1) That the instrumentality causing the injury was, at the
> time of the injury, or at the time of the creation of the
> condition causing the injury, under the exclusive
> management and control of the defendant;
>
> I argue that EVERY time when doctor violates the law as I
> described above (and remember this happens in HT surgery
> regullary,do research and you will find that what I say is
> true)fulfils this requirement of the doctrine. All
> instrumentality in exclusive control of doctor (example
> surgeon)he chose to abandon,ILLEGALY ,making that choice
> unilaterally (without patient consent)(and for example
> leave the pre operative diagnosis, actual surgery, post
> operative care to be performed not by him directly, not
> even with his supervision how it is done is ALWAYS
> satisfying this first requirement of res ipsa .He
> illegally, abandoned patient in middle of surgery. He had
> control, he chose not to have control and he had control
> not to choose to delegate his control,illegally.Everything
> that happens to that patient in that surgical room, any
> injury or adverse outcome, when doctor illegally is
> absent, is in the doctors control.
> 2) The second element is
> "that the injury occurred under such circumstances that in
> the ordinary course of events it would not have occurred
> if ordinary care had been observed."
>
> My argument to Always satisfy this requirement is, this
> when surgeon brakes the law, does illegal,forbiden conduct
> such as: abandoning patient, leaving him alone with the
> technicians and unsupervised (which I repeat is epidemic
> in HT surgeries)MUST be presumed that ordinary care was
> not given (standard of care was breached).Must be presumed
> because the legislator sanctioned such conducts as
> forbidden BECAUSE they pose danger to harm patient and are
> considered violations of patient's rights. They are
> illegal therefore they are illegal to be considered
> (standard, ordinary...)care.
>
> If one visits my posts
> here:
> http://hair-restoration-
> info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7466060861/m/2261058104
>
> here:
> http://hair-restoration-
> info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/2566060861/m/5981000204
>
> here:
> http://hair-restoration-
> info.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3466060861/m/7131061204
>
> One would notice how far in becoming lawless the field of
> elective surgery had become.
>
> On the third link I dialog with one of the most respected
> HT surgeons in the world. Dr.Robert Haber He claims what
> he claims there,care!!check it out.This people had become
> arrogant business man, the untouchables.
>
> This can be hudge BREAKTHROUGH in The pursuit of justice
> for hundreds of thousands of butchered victims handled by
> this "busines".If it becomes successful precedent in Case
> law
>
> For the Lawyers it is the new ELDORADO
>
>
> Go to the web site and see your self.
> I know that many of you will say, you vere
> vain,selfish,went and choose elective surgery, instead
> being graceful and gracefully grow older and balder. And
> you are right.I don't deserve sympathy. And I don't do
> this for that. I do it with hope that people will better
> understand and prevent them selves to do the same mistake
> as I did. It costs me great humility and shame. It is hard
> to admit one of the biggest mistakes of my life was done
> because of vanity.
>
> I do it so someone with power will do something to stop
> the entirely lawless as they call it Industry” that like
> predator lurks for pray of inocent,under the cover of the
> noble profession of physician.
>
> Sorry about spelling mistakes English is not my original
> language.

Posts on this thread, including this one

• New precedent in medical malpractice claims ?, 11/12/08, by john36.
• Re: New precedent in medical malpractice claims ?, 11/12/08, by Curmudgeon.
• Re: New precedent in medical malpractice claims ?, 11/13/08, by Carol.
• Re: New precedent in medical malpractice claims ?, 3/15/09, by Irma.