Re: New precedent in medical malpractice claims ?
Posted by Irma on 3/15/09

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.

I have a statement to give also. Not one of these people
every tried to contact me and they are in these jobs to help
people and they are either sarcastic or give some stupid
remark. They don't care. They use people and when they screw
up they cover up for each other. Their insurance companies
must give them good perks. They let them disfigure me too and
they think I will shut up, don't think so. How did you get
the names of doctors? I want the names of the lawyers too.
If I wasn't a minority I think they would have came running,
but no, it has to be one of them or the one that will lie for
them. It's like a pyrimad, they pick the ones they want with
money and everyone else gets their lives ruined. If the
government does not pay attention to us I will never vote
again for president. We all have to get our stories out
there. Do you notice the democrats have died trying it to
make it better for everyone and they are the ones getting
killed? I will not shut up either. Best of luck to you, we
all have to stick together.

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.