The case was later settled in arbitration.

  • entwine413@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    140
    ·
    edit-2
    7 days ago

    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.

    • cogman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

    • idiomaddict@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      7 days ago

      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.

      • roofuskit@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 days ago

        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.

        • idiomaddict@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          That’s was up to the plaintiff, not the judge.

          Yes, and their position was worsened by him being a good doctor. That feels like a win to me.

          • entwine413@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            7 days ago

            Not to the plaintiff if he was actually guilty of medical malpractice.

            Saving someone’s life doesn’t mean you can’t commit malpractice.

            • idiomaddict@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              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.

          • qarbone@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            7 days ago

            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.

          • roofuskit@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            7 days ago

            You’re assuming it wasn’t his insurance company that pushed to settle to avoid the costs of another trial.

            • idiomaddict@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              7 days ago

              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.

        • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          7 days ago

          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.

            • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              Insurance is on the side of the defendant. The plantif determines if they go back to court. Insuance has nothing to do with that

                • Sc00ter@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  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