Re: New precedent in medical malpractice claims ?
Posted by Carol on 11/13/08

God's trousers what a rant. I like the way he uses "bellow" for
"below" though, nice Freudian slip.
On 11/12/08, Curmudgeon wrote:
> 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.