I am a registered nurse. No questions at this time. However, you are now on my speed dial!

Have you ever met any law speaking guys as bad as Lionel Hutz?

Also, how long before you make barrister and get to wear a wig?

(January 10, 2017 at 9:35 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote:

Quote:How many do you see that are medical misadventure vs malpractice?

Hmm... I'm not really familiar with this terminology (misadventure). It's not really used in the USA. Elaboration plz?

This explains it a bit. 

http://www.burtonreport.com/infforensic/...neglig.htm

Misadventure is a euphemism for 'fuck-up'.

(January 11, 2017 at 4:16 am)Tazzycorn Wrote: Have you ever met any law speaking guys as bad as Lionel Hutz?

You know, I wouldn't really know, because I've only ever watched a handful of Simpsons episodes. (Outrageous, I know.) I at least knew enough to recognize that "Lionel Hutz" is the bad awful lawyer from the Simpsons. Umm... some lawyers are definitely bad. There aren't really any hilariously incompetent lawyers (lawyers like that don't really get work), but there are sort of two classes of bad lawyering. Sometimes, you see lawyers who are good and competent in general but don't prepare for any specific case, kind of going into court and saying, "your honor, I'm here today because it's an absolute travesty that Mr." <looks down at paper to find out his client's name> "Jones is being made to" <looks down at paper to see what the case is about> "pay this parking ticket." Not, you know, literally like that... but sort of. This actually happens to some very good lawyers; they get to the point where they represent a few big corporate clients in a bunch of trials, but there's so many that they don't have time to really dive into the case until the week before it starts (which is not a recipe for success). There's a second group of lawyers that, for whatever reason, just don't seem to know the basics - they'll file briefs or motions that aren't permissible, they'll bring claims that are clearly not allowed under the law... this happens more to new attorneys, especially solo practitioners. This is because, in the US at least, Law School teaches you about the law but absolutely does not teach you how to be a lawyer. Only a few states still have apprenticeship-type requirements (and these are less about making sure lawyers are competent and more about artificially suppressing the number of lawyers), so if you graduate law school and start off on your own, it's understandable (though not excusable) that you'd really not know some basic stuff unless you have experienced lawyers in your personal or professional life.

Quote:Also, how long before you make barrister and get to wear a wig?

Never, to my undying sadness. That doesn't happen in the USA. America is anti-wig. I may try to become a judge someday (at least 20 years down the road), in which case I'll get a robe and a gavel... but still no wig. I could always buy my own, I suppose - if anyone calls me out on it, I'll kick them out of my courtroom

---

(January 11, 2017 at 8:32 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(January 10, 2017 at 9:35 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: Hmm... I'm not really familiar with this terminology (misadventure). It's not really used in the USA. Elaboration plz?

This explains it a bit. 

http://www.burtonreport.com/infforensic/...neglig.htm

Ah, mmkay.  I guess it is used in the USA, just not in my neck of the woods (be it geographically or professionally). 

So, it sounds to me (from that) as though "misadventure" is more the sort of "mistakes happen, and even though you goofed up there wasn't really anything we could've done to prevent this" type event, whereas "malpractice" is more the sort of "mistakes happen, but this one shouldn't have if you had made a better decision."  Which kind of goes back to what I said in an earlier response (that we should be working to 1) eliminate the latter of these while 2) ensuring a system of fair compensation for the former).

It's hard for me to say what the ratio is, partly because I haven't done this long enough, and partly because that's a pretty fine distinction that I'm not necessarily qualified as a non-doctor to answer (and which isn't tremendously relevant to me professionally, inasmuch as both are classified as "negligence" and "malpractice" in legal terminology).  I would say the majority of cases I see are of the "malpractice" sort rather than the "misadventure" sort, though I would venture that this is in part because "malpractice" goofs will almost always result in a lawsuit, whereas "misadventure" goofs are more likely to be resolved or forgiven or such before it gets to the lawsuit stage.  That's speculation, though - the answer is "I don't really know."

So being on the medical side of things did you need to learn things that a doctor would while in school or do you get to hear enough in the cases that you are starting to learn medical things?

When defending the hospital/doctors/staff, do you team up with the med mal insurance entities?

(January 10, 2017 at 4:12 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Do you shave/trim your pubic hairs?

The timing of this made coffee come out of my nose.

I C_L.

(January 11, 2017 at 12:06 pm)TheRealJoeFish Wrote: Never, to my undying sadness.  That doesn't happen in the USA.  America is anti-wig.  I may try to become a judge someday (at least 20 years down the road), in which case I'll get a robe and a gavel... but still no wig.  I could always buy my own, I suppose - if anyone calls me out on it, I'll kick them out of my courtroom  

Get your own wig, and if the judge queries, just tell him/her/it that "if the President of these here United States is allowed wear a wig in public, then so am I!" Problem solved.

Third question: How often and how hard do you laugh at courtroom drama on the telly? I hear that it can get very bad, and only gets worse from there.

(January 11, 2017 at 12:59 pm)mlmooney89 Wrote: So being on the medical side of things did you need to learn things that a doctor would while in school or do you get to hear enough in the cases that you are starting to learn medical things?

I've always been very interested in medicine and even back in grade school would sort of seek out anatomical information (and no, that's not a porn joke, although now that I think about it...)  So, I'd say I've always had a pretty good understanding of how medicine and medical care works (I'm the first lawyer in my family, but I have a lot of doctors and nurses in my extended family (uncle, grandparents, cousins)).  I never had any formal training in human biology or medicine, but I've got what I'd call a particularly deep layman's understanding of body systems and disease and such.  My interest in that is part of the reason why I thought this field was so appealing to me.  Having any sort of medical knowledge was never a prerequisite, but it has helped me be more efficient in my work right off the bat (because I don't need to spend much time looking up what things are or their significance or what different drugs or procedures are used for and whatnot).  I have a very STEMmy background, which helps me go through medical records and technical documents very quickly (a lot of attorneys are hopelessly lost at first trying to read scientific documents).

Since starting here (and even before this job, while clerking with the judge for two years and seeing a medmal trial every few months), I've learned a whole ton about all sorts of things.  In particular, it's one thing to know about some kind of disease or problem and another to know the details of how that issue is dealt with by medical professionals; I'd often have a pretty clear idea of the former but no clue about the latter.

In this field, you see the very experienced attorneys demonstrate medical knowledge and judgment better than some doctors.  It's not unheard of for an attorney, viewing a medical chart with an x-ray or something, to notice a problem that wasn't picked up and tell the dude "yo, you should get to a doctor - not for the broken rib this case is about, but for this little dot down here which might be lung cancer."  There are a few attorneys that people say they'd go to for a second opinion any day, and they say this only somewhat jokingly.  I aspire to be like that some day .  In particular, the quality of lawyering in the medical malpractice field is quite high, because there's a lot of money involved and the technical aspects serve as a soft barrier to entry that sort of selects for the people who are really interested in the medical side or otherwise have a knack for it.