The case was later settled in arbitration.

  • 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.