[LordOpie]

I just got home from spending four days in the hospital. I got a staph infection from my ACL reconstruction surgery.

I went to the hospital at 2am Friday night/Sat.AM and 14 hours later, I was back in the operating room so they could open up the surgical area, remove the infection, and send samples to the lab to determine what it was and a course of action.

I'm not a litigious person, but I read this article about another cyclist who nearly died from the same infection at the same hospital.

The infection gave me a whole new meaning of pain.

My co-pay would likely be ~$1200 for the four days. Which I won't pay. I lost two days of work and I'm leaning towards just sucking it up. I suppose my decision will be based on how the hospital treats the situation.

They sent me home today with an IV line in my arm and I have to give myself antibotics via it for four more days, then a week of pills.

Anyway, I'm still groggy and not thinking clearly, but wanted to get y'alls thoughts on this.

TIA!

 

[.:Jeenyus:.]

You live in America. This shouldn't be a question.

 

[druber]

Only if you think they were negligent in some way.

 

[rideit]

You should be allowed to reciprocate, and administer a fresh staph infection to the surgeon. Fair's fair....

 

[Slugman]

Hate to be negative - but you went in for a voluntary surgery, you have to have known (and I'm sure they explained) that there are risks.

Infection in a surgical operation is something that they do everything that they can to avoid - but it happens even when they follow EVERY guideline and rule. It will be VERY hard to prove any negligence on behalf of the OR staff or the hospital.

Then again you may just get lucky and they will try and settle quickly...

 

[justsomeguy]

What do you imagine the basis for your suit would be?

Staph lives on many people's skin. When these people have surgery, the staph has a new, nice, warm, soft home to make baby staphs in.

Bummer of a situation but filing a frivolous suit won't make it any better.

 

[zmtber]

Don’t sue, doctors get to much **** from patients anyways, you have to understand they are probably doing you a favor, what insurance do you have "medical, or something else like that" remember this insurance usually only pay a 10th or less of what the doctors should be getting, and they are getting screwed by the government. Doctors work hard and have to deal with ass patients that want to sue them everyday, remember they have a family as well and they are a person too. Going to court just ads a lot of stress to them and their family (like everyone else in the world), when in fact it’s not their fault. Doctors make mistakes (not as much, because they can't afford to), but they are humans. Do people turn around and sue you every time you make a mistake, no I didn't think so. If you have a problem with that doctor or hospital, go to a private doctor, or get another one. They are (the docs) are doing the best they can, and remember they do care what happens to you, they just see a lot of people, and have a very stressful job. Remember this is after going to school for an extra 8 or so years. Just put yourself in there shoes. The doctors are not mind readers you have to sometimes tell them what wrong, if you do that they should fix it, but just remember its not free. Time is money and money is time, and their job is hard, if you think hey that’s what they are paid for (so they should be my bitch), then you try and do what they do, and then you will see your wrong. They don't owe you anything, they are saving your life and others live everyday, and they hardly ever even get single thanks. If you are looking for a hero, then look no further then you’re nearest hospital. Doctors are again working hard and there family hardly gets to see them, for instance you went at 2 o’clock, would you want to be working at that time. I didn't think so, so just be grateful!

 

[Changleen]

Don't add to the culture of litigiousness! Be cool!

 

[H8R]

Go back and re-read all the mumbo AND the jumbo they made you sign before you went in. I bet secondary infection was in there under the heading of "Tough Sh1t For You If it Happens".

 

[SK6]

Don’t sue, doctors get to much **** from patients anyways, you have to understand they are probably doing you a favor, what insurance do you have "medical, or something else like that" remember this insurance usually only pay a 10th or less of what the doctors should be getting, and they are getting screwed by the government. Doctors work hard and have to deal with ass patients that want to sue them everyday, remember they have a family as well and they are a person too. Going to court just ads a lot of stress to them and their family (like everyone else in the world), when in fact it’s not their fault. Doctors make mistakes (not as much, because they can't afford to), but they are humans. Do people turn around and sue you every time you make a mistake, no I didn't think so. If you have a problem with that doctor or hospital, go to a private doctor, or get another one. They are (the docs) are doing the best they can, and remember they do care what happens to you, they just see a lot of people, and have a very stressful job. Remember this is after going to school for an extra 8 or so years. Just put yourself in there shoes. The doctors are not mind readers you have to sometimes tell them what wrong, if you do that they should fix it, but just remember its not free. Time is money and money is time, and their job is hard, if you think hey that’s what they are paid for (so they should be my bitch), then you try and do what they do, and then you will see your wrong. They don't owe you anything, they are saving your life and others live everyday, and they hardly ever even get single thanks. If you are looking for a hero, then look no further then you’re nearest hospital. Doctors are again working hard and there family hardly gets to see them, for instance you went at 2 o’clock, would you want to be working at that time. I didn't think so, so just be grateful!

Your kidding right? The doctors OWE a duty to keep their patients safe and ensure the patients health to the best of their ability. Yes, many doctors are hero's trust me, no one knows more then me, however, there are times when a few need to be held accountable. Because the doctor might have done something wrong, or the patient received sub-par care this one time, we should look away?

My wife is the medical field, and is also a clinical instructor for MCV, so trust me, some doctors and hospitals need to be held accountable. Hey, but be grateful you got staff!!! yeah, that doc is my hero.

So, LordOpie, you would be wise to consult with an attorney.

 

[SK6]

Go back and re-read all the mumbo AND the jumbo they made you sign before you went in. I bet secondary infection was in there under the heading of "Tough Sh1t For You If it Happens".

Yeah, that could be true, but there is a legal doctrine referred to as "Reasonable Expectation" that pretty much invalidates all the fine print, for the most part.

But then again, your probably right...LOL!

 

[zmtber]

you ****ing don't understand

 

[Silver]

Your ****ing dumb

You're not so sharp yourself

 

[narlus]

i'm w/ JSG all the way...what's the basis??? if it was blatant negligence, then sure, but i'd be hard to pressed to think you'd have a case. maybe i'm wrong, though.

don't increase everyone's insurance payments because the roulette wheel came up green for you.

 

[H8R]

But then again, your probably right...LOL!

Cool. Let's trade jobs.

 

[Reactor]

I just got home from spending four days in the hospital. I got a staph infection from my ACL reconstruction surgery.

I went to the hospital at 2am Friday night/Sat.AM and 14 hours later, I was back in the operating room so they could open up the surgical area, remove the infection, and send samples to the lab to determine what it was and a course of action.

I'm not a litigious person, but I read this article about another cyclist who nearly died from the same infection at the same hospital.

The infection gave me a whole new meaning of pain.

My co-pay would likely be ~$1200 for the four days. Which I won't pay. I lost two days of work and I'm leaning towards just sucking it up. I suppose my decision will be based on how the hospital treats the situation.

They sent me home today with an IV line in my arm and I have to give myself antibotics via it for four more days, then a week of pills.

Anyway, I'm still groggy and not thinking clearly, but wanted to get y'alls thoughts on this.

TIA!

I don't know. According to my Ortho guy, this is the very definition of mal-practice. I'd ask them to at least to waive the copay, since you don't get a staph infection for nothing.

 

[chicodude]

Tough call.

I am not very sue happy persay, but its kind of weird that another dude almost died of the same thing at the same hospital.

I would get 'em for the copay, nothing else.

 

[skinny mike]

you ****ing don't understand

let me guess, one of your parents is a plastic surgeon? its the only medical profession that i can think of where lawsuits are totally rampant.

 

[-dustin]

isn't zmtber's dad a doctor? wonder if he's been sued.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Tough call.

I am not very sue happy persay, but its kind of weird that another dude almost died of the same thing at the same hospital.

I would get 'em for the copay, nothing else.

Persay. That's funny.

 

[Westy]

I'd sue Loco, I bet it is his fault.

 

[SkaredShtles]

I don't see what the big deal is............. bacterial infections are cool.

 

[BurlyShirley]

just pee on it next time, sissy.

 

[Reactor]

I have a friend who is crippled because a doctor was too tied up in his EGO at being one of the best surgeons in Tucson, and wouldn't listen to her after surgery. Be just blew her off, so a lady had hiked across the grand canyon several times can barely walk. Doctors make mistakes, some times terrible mistakes, they also have malpractice insurance, and make a lot of money.

I don't know any specialist that doesn't clear at least 250K a year, and most I know quite a few who make several times that. My Neurologist charges $150 bucks for an appointment that usually lasts less than five minutes, so that's about $1800 a hour, about 40 times what I make. Yes he has to pay a couple of ten dollar an hour office staff, but the cost is fairly trivial compared to what he makes.

None of this has any bearing on anything. If you feel the Doctor was negligent, you should consider your options, and research if you might, or might not, have a case.

 

[narlus]

I don't see what the big deal is............. bacterial infections are cool.

based on what you know, can you say negligence was involved?

 

[narlus]

maybe we should sue all the makers of anti-bacterial soap, and their users.

 

[Dirtjumper999]

just curious,but i here i lot of cyclists getting torn acl's, and i'm just wondering what happens that is so bad that you tear your acl?

 

[SkaredShtles]

based on what you know, can you say negligence was involved?

I would say that the bacteria were grossly negligent. But they don't have very deep pockets. ink:

 

[SkaredShtles]

maybe we should sue all the makers of anti-bacterial soap, and their users.

Now you're thinking like a lawyer!

 

[SK6]

Under law, negligence is usually defined in the context of jury instructions wherein a judge instructs the jury that a party is to be considered negligent if they failed to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised under the same circumstances. In most jurisdictions, it is necessary to show first that a person had a duty to exercise care in a given situation, and that they breached that duty.

In brief: Negligence, a tort, is a civil wrong consisting of five criteria: Duty or reasonable standard of care (as decided by judge as a matter of law), Breach (or "negligence" in laymen's terms, decided as a matter of fact), Injury (the fact that the plaintiff suffered an injury, and is determined at a matter of fact), Cause in Fact or conduct of defendant that causes plaintiff's injury(s)(decided as a matter of fact), Legal Cause (now perceived as the foreseeability of the type of injury caused but not the specific injury or extent of injury, determined as a matter of fact). Matters of law are decided by a judge, matters of fact are decided by a jury.

In order to prove negligence, it is not necessary to prove harm, but in order for a cause of action to rest in tort, harm must be proven. Hence, it would be meaningless to sue someone for negligence if no harm resulted.

Conversely, it is not enough that a harm was done. In order for the harm to be compensable in a negligence lawsuit, the defendant must be shown to have been negligent, and it must be demonstrated that his negligence was the proximate cause of the harm sustained by the plaintiff.
Negligence can lead to this sort of accident - a train wreck at Gare Montparnasse in 1895.
Enlarge
Negligence can lead to this sort of accident - a train wreck at Gare Montparnasse in 1895.

Damages are awarded in proportion to the scope of the harm done, following the principle of restitutio in integrum (literally 'restoration to the original condition'). Thus the severity of the negligence is irrelevant. Still, some negligent acts are recognized as a matter of law to be so egregious as to merit financial penalty over and above actual damages, in order to reform the conduct of a malicious or callously indifferent defendant, and, by example, others similarly disposed. This is the purpose of punitive damages.

DUTY:

The duty element is the legal requirement that the person being sued for negligence must adhere to a standard of conduct in protecting others from unreasonable risk of harm. The duty element may be considered a formalisation of the implicit responsibilities held by an individual towards another individual within society.
Manufacturers are reponsible for adequately warning consumers of possibly dangerous products. Failure to do so could make the manufacturer liable for possible damages.
Manufacturers are reponsible for adequately warning consumers of possibly dangerous products. Failure to do so could make the manufacturer liable for possible damages.

Different duties apply to different people.

* Parents have a duty to care for their children.
* Landlords have a duty to keep a residence habitable for their tenants.
* Each duty is applicable to the pertinent responsibility at hand.
* Professionals are held to a higher standard of care than the average person in society. These people take oaths in their professions and need to maintain that level of duty when they perform their professional activities.

 

[SK6]

Breach of duty

Breaching that duty is the second element to a negligence lawsuit. The question to be asked is: Would a reasonable person in a similar situation have done the same thing as the defendant? If the question is answered in the affirmative, the defendant will not be found liable. If answered in the negative, the defendant may be absolved from liability only if the breach was not a direct cause of injury. To arrive at the conclusion both objective and subjective standards need to be considered.

* The objective standard of breach of duty only considers a hypothetical person and what their reasonable behaviour might be.
* The subjective standard considers the actual person being sued and if the jury thinks they acted reasonably in the matter at hand.

 

[SK6]

Causation

The causation of negligence is the third critical element of the lawsuit. There are actually two elements of causation that must be shown: actual cause (sometimes referred to as "cause in fact") and legal cause (sometimes referred to as "proximate cause").

(a) Cause in Fact
Actual cause asks the question of whether the person being sued, the defendant, was the actual cause of injuries sustained by the person initiating the lawsuit, the plaintiff. A "But-For Test" is generally employed which has four elements:

* Identify the injuries for which redress is sought;
* identify the wrongful conduct;
* mentally correct wrongful conduct to extent necessary to make it lawful, leaving everything else the same;
* ask whether the injuries would still have occurred if the defendant had acted correctly in this case.

(b) Proximate Cause
Proximate cause looks at the issue of foreseeability. When considering the event that has happened, it is asked whether or not the injuries sustained were foreseeable or too remotely connected to the incident to even consider. Only reasonably foreseeable damage may be recovered by an action in negligence. This means that at the time the tortfeasor committed the negligent act, it must have been reasonably foreseeable that damage of the same kind as the plaintiff suffered would ensue from it. The extent of the damage need not be foreseeable; and it matters not what the plaintiff in fact foresaw - the test is a purely objective one.

 

[SK6]

This will give you a basic idea of how the legal system views torts.

Please note, that I am only a paralegal, and only discussing the theories within the scope of duty and civil torts. This DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL ADVICE in any way shape or form. For legal advice for ones particular situation, one would be urged to consult with an attorney.

 

[H8R]

My mom makes a killer chocolate torte.

 

[amateur]

Unless you can find an explicit example of negligence, suck it up. You knew it was a risk and went on with the surgery anyway. Sure another cyclist had a similar problem, but look up some stats for other hospitals, I'm sure they'll be similar.

I'd see what I could do about the copay, but come on...

 

[SK6]

My mom makes a killer chocolate torte.

Until I began to eat right and work out a year ago, I used to eat pop-torts for breakfast.

 

[ioscope]

Don't sue.

 

[LordOpie]

I don't know. According to my Ortho guy, this is the very definition of mal-practice. I'd ask them to at least to waive the copay, since you don't get a staph infection for nothing.

That' what I'm thinking... they should waive co-pay for fixing the infection, yeah?

IF I did sue, I would sue the hospital, not the doctor. Sounds like this hospital's procedures are what's at question, not the doctor?

 

[LordOpie]

If... they find negligence, then they should be sued. What happens next time when the patient doesn't make it?

good point.

Sounds like the State is investigating the problem, so I don't need to sue to make a point.

 

[Changleen]

Please note, that I am only a paralegal, and only discussing the theories within the scope of duty and civil torts. This DOES NOT REPRESENT LEGAL ADVICE in any way shape or form. For legal advice for ones particular situation, one would be urged to consult with an attorney.

LMAO :love: