Today I Learned
What did you learn today? Share it with us!
We learn something new every day. This is a community dedicated to informing each other and helping to spread knowledge.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with TIL. Linking to a source of info is optional, but highly recommended as it helps to spark discussion.
** Posts must be about an actual fact that you have learned, but it doesn't matter if you learned it today. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.**
Rule 2- Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your post subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-TIL posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-TIL posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Partnered Communities
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
view the rest of the comments
The judge didn't let him go because he did a good thing. A mistrial isn't a not guilty verdict. It's basically just saying, "This trial is fucked beyond repair, try again."
The judge ordered a mistrial because the other jurors would likely be swayed by him saving another juror's life and rule in his favor despite evidence of his guilt.
The case went to arbitration after that.
Exactly.
He could have seen another trial, but it'd be with a new jury.
Arbitration is usually faster and cheaper than setting up a brand new trial.
This was a civil trial, "guilty" was never an option
Regardless, a mistrial doesn't mean the defendant is off the hook.
I would absolutely consider ending a lawsuit with a negotiation instead of a negative judgment to be a win. Obviously the jury pool would have been biased in favor of the doctor, but they could have requested a new jury.
That's was up to the plaintiff, not the judge. As it was a civil suit it was probably too expensive them to pay to panel another jury and then re-argue the case. Lawyers are expensive.
Yes, and their position was worsened by him being a good doctor. That feels like a win to me.
Not to the plaintiff if he was actually guilty of medical malpractice.
Saving someone's life doesn't mean you can't commit malpractice.
But none of us knows anything about the details or merits of that case, so...
Correct, but I’m evaluating this from the defendant’s perspective. If you want to consider this a neutral development until you’re able to evaluate the facts of the case, that’s your prerogative. If you find them, I’d be interested in reading them.
From what I could read, he just used a defib kit. Would his ability to ease symptoms of a heart attack have any bearing on his fitness to do whatever the hell gynelogical oncology entails?
I guess it doesn't have to, in fact. It just has to feel like it does to win over a selection of people who don't really care amd wouldn't know better.
Isn't gynelogical oncology just like, cancers relating to women's health? So uterine cancer or the like.
That sounds reasonably likely.
You're assuming it wasn't his insurance company that pushed to settle to avoid the costs of another trial.
I’ve worked in insurance companies for long term bodily injury claims, they wanted that from the start. The mistrial allowed them to get it.
You can sue to include layers/court fees. And most of the time, these types of layers dont do it for base fees, they do it for a % of the settlement. If theyre going after malpractice, they have insurance to pay that out. I cant really imagine the cost of court would sway them against going back to trial.
It's a malpractice suit so the insurance company was making the calls.
Insurance is on the side of the defendant. The plantif determines if they go back to court. Insuance has nothing to do with that
It does if they make a settlement offer to keep it out of court a second time.
They likely made a settlement offer the first time too. The easily could have made a worse settlement offer the second time because court was going so well, and the plantif knew they might not get what they were asking for.
We dont know