Tygod suing the doctor who hastened Herbert’s ascension

[Mr. WEO]

7 hours ago, FireChans said:

 

It made me think there was a possible discrepancy in documentation vs what was actually administered, like something with auto-text.

 

I think part of his claim was that because a different volume of anesthetic was involved, he didn't give specific consent for this procedure. I ain't no lawyer tho.

 

the amount or type of local anesthetic given has nothing to do with the complication of the procedure.  it was the needle itself

[Doc]

7 hours ago, FireChans said:

It made me think there was a possible discrepancy in documentation vs what was actually administered, like something with auto-text.

 

I think part of his claim was that because a different volume of anesthetic was involved, he didn't give specific consent for this procedure. I ain't no lawyer tho.

 

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

the amount or type of local anesthetic given has nothing to do with the complication of the procedure.  it was the needle itself

 

Yeah, there may have been a documentation discrepancy and it's no shock the lawyer would seize on that, but that has nothing to do with it.  To think that Tyrod, upon reading the consent, would have said "a higher percentage of bupivacaine?  No way am I getting that!" is ridiculous.

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

 

Yeah, there may have been a documentation discrepancy and it's no shock the lawyer would seize on that, but that has nothing to do with it.  To think that Tyrod, upon reading the consent, would have said "a higher percentage of bupivacaine?  No way am I getting that!" is ridiculous.

 

more like "what's that thing after the .25?"

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

the amount or type of local anesthetic given has nothing to do with the complication of the procedure.  it was the needle itself

Oh I’m aware 

[muppy]

all the evidence will come out in court.  Reading physician posts online make it read as if he will lose because of his "consent" for treatment and it being a possible side effect of the procedure.

 

As a novice my question is what steps if any were taken to ensure the shot would be administered in a safe and responsible manner. I mean puncturing a lung happens in what percentage of those procedures? Because it being listed as a possible side effect to me could be looked at as a physicians mistake OR related to the preexisting condition.

 

*shrugs*  

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

1 hour ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

more like "what's that thing after the .25?"

Glock 9mm.? 🤔

*
😁

Too damned easy to take things out of context on a message board!

Edited August 5, 2023 by Ridgewaycynic2013

[Mr. WEO]

9 minutes ago, muppy said:

all the evidence will come out in court.  Reading physician posts online make it read as if he will lose because of his "consent" for treatment and it being a possible side effect of the procedure.

 

As a novice my question is what steps if any were taken to ensure the shot would be administered in a safe and responsible manner. I mean puncturing a lung happens in what percentage of those procedures? Because it being listed as a possible side effect to me could be looked at as a physicians mistake OR related to the preexisting condition.

 

*shrugs*  

 

I would imagine all of the evidence came out in discovery.

 

I'm not sure how the plaintiff would prove the procedure was performed recklessly and outside of the standard of care, which is what he has to prove to win the suit. Suffering a known complication that he he was made aware of beforehand isn't in and of itself, evidence of care outside of the standard for this procedure.

 

Reading through the schedule, this was always meant for trial.  The Defendant filed several motions for dismissal.  They were denied, so orders to proceed to trial were give.  Followed by more motions to dismiss. etc.

 

This is gong on until 5/2024.  Also, of note, it is looks like it's a non-jury trial.  Good luck with that!

Edited August 5, 2023 by Mr. WEO

[muppy]

1 minute ago, Mr. WEO said:

I would imagine all of the evidence came out in discovery.

 

I'm not sure how the plaintiff would prove the procedure was performed recklessly and outside of the standard of care, which is what he has to prove to win the suit. Suffering a known complication that he he was made aware of beforehand isn't in and of itself, evidence of care outside of the standard for this procedure.

to the red my thinking it is how will the jury look at the evidence presented on both sides. Juries are never slam dunk unless the evidence is so clearly obvious. I would want to hear and digest what each side has to say . Maybe his case will be thrown out I dunno.

 

to the black my thinking is as a potential juror I would want to hear from medical professionals just what their protocol exactly IS, and then possible rebuttal as to why it could have been a medical mistake or just the nature of the malady that it could happen.

 

I'll be curious to hear the final ruling.

[Mr. WEO]

1 minute ago, muppy said:

to the red my thinking it is how will the jury look at the evidence presented on both sides. Juries are never slam dunk unless the evidence is so clearly obvious. I would want to hear and digest what each side has to say . Maybe his case will be thrown out I dunno.

 

to the black my thinking is as a potential juror I would want to hear from medical professionals just what their protocol exactly IS, and then possible rebuttal as to why it could have been a medical mistake or just the nature of the malady that it could happen.

 

I'll be curious to hear the final ruling.

 

It's a non-jury trial.

 

Even if there was a jury, the plaintiff's expert witness would have to conjure up something (or fabricate it) to convince the jury that the defendant didn't act properly during the procedure. 

[muppy]

Just now, Mr. WEO said:

 

It's a non-jury trial.

 

Even if there was a jury, the plaintiff's expert witness would have to conjure up something (or fabricate it) to convince the jury that the defendant didn't act properly during the procedure. 

OH  to the red non jury okay thanks I was not aware

 

to the black: that the medical professional  didn't act properly. I would want to know his credentials and again, hear what both sides have to say before I make up my mind. "I"  being the judge that is.  It did take them a while to come to this conclusion there was an error causing his lung to collapse I'll give you that.

[Doc]

27 minutes ago, muppy said:

OH  to the red non jury okay thanks I was not aware

 

to the black: that the medical professional  didn't act properly. I would want to know his credentials and again, hear what both sides have to say before I make up my mind. "I"  being the judge that is.  It did take them a while to come to this conclusion there was an error causing his lung to collapse I'll give you that.

 

The doctor's credentials are well-known to Taylor at this point and he allowed him to perform 2 nerve blocks in the days preceding, without incident.  What he's trying to claim, as I alluded to before, is that by changing the concentration and/or amount of local anesthetic, it was battery since it wasn't a procedure he (would have) consented to and it caused the complication.  Neither is true and it's amazing the case is being allowed to continue.

 

One thing I'm not clear on, and I may have missed it, is did the insurance company offer a settlement?  Or did they not want to settle at all?

[Mr. WEO]

54 minutes ago, muppy said:

OH  to the red non jury okay thanks I was not aware

 

to the black: that the medical professional  didn't act properly. I would want to know his credentials and again, hear what both sides have to say before I make up my mind. "I"  being the judge that is.  It did take them a while to come to this conclusion there was an error causing his lung to collapse I'll give you that.

 

He was the team physician, so his credentials weren't in question.  Plus, as doc, points out, he had the procedure before by the same guy.

 

16 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

The doctor's credentials are well-known to Taylor at this point and he allowed him to perform 2 nerve blocks in the days preceding, without incident.  What he's trying to claim, as I alluded to before, is that by changing the concentration and/or amount of local anesthetic, it was battery since it wasn't a procedure he (would have) consented to and it caused the complication.  Neither is true and it's amazing the case is being allowed to continue.

 

One thing I'm not clear on, and I may have missed it, is did the insurance company offer a settlement?  Or did they not want to settle at all?

 

 

I've never seen a consent with the specific amount or type of local to be used listed on it.

 

I bet no settlement was offered.

 

Another big problem with Tyrod's case is an obvious one:  

 

"Taylor's attorneys also contend that Gazzaniga's "negligence, carelessness and other tortious, unlawful and wrong acts ... caused [Taylor] to lose position as the starting quarterback for the Los Angeles Chargers for the 2020 season," just before he was scheduled to become a free agent.  "As he returned to free agency," the lawsuit contends, "he entered as a back-up quarterback as opposed to a starting quarterback. The economic difference between a starting quarterback's salary and a back-up quarterback salary is at least $5,000,000 and is more than likely much greater."

 

So he would have to convince the judge that he would have continue to start over the Offensive Rookie of the Year.  Also, he entered FA as "a backup", but was singed (for over 5 million) by Houston as their week 1 starter. He was (of course) injured the next week and on IR.  He came back, started 4 more games, sucked and was bench for another rookie (Mills).  Obviously he was backup caliber, how would he convince a judge otherwise.  The guy made 65 million for 53 starts.  

 

So he really can't prove damages as lost wages.

 

 

[DrPJax]

     I agree with MR WEO, if they are actually going to court , the defense must be very confident as the malpractice insurance company’s legal team always has  the option to settle, even without permission from the defending DR who may be 100% certain he did everything required to match community standards regarding the procedure. It’s only about limiting expense for the malpractice insurance company , so to take a chance on more time / more cost with not settling IMO means they are confident they will be successful. 

 

     Tyrod, of course , could have refused any settlement , and i think he might learn pursuing a jury trial is placing your physical and emotional well being  in the hands of lay people and it just adds tremendous uncertainty as no one can completely read or predict how a jury will see things. Tyrol is a multimillionaire from his playing time , so most regular working people may feel resentment or at least find it hard to relate to someone of his stature seeking more money. Also , there is no such thing in the NFL as having a guaranteed starting position locked up and then proving that he lost the starting position solely from his time required to recover from his non-permanent injury of a pneumothorax. I think he will find if he was ever offered a settlement , it’s usually the best to not get greedy and keep pursuing that mystical  pot of gold.

 

     It reminds me of one of my patients who was a wonderful older man in his late 60’s who went out into his back yard one evening in the dark , and he fell over 6 feet down into his sewage tank as the company putting it in his yard left it uncovered and nothing was placed to warn of any hazards. He fractured several vertebrae in his back upon falling , and he continued to suffer with disabling back pain for all the time until the case ended in court. I really felt for him as the fractures and pain were reasonably temporally related to that fall with no prior history of back issues. In fact, the company responsible offered him a 6 figure settlement, so they obviously felt exposed.

      However, despite many people telling him to accept the settlement , he shockingly refused it and pressed his legal team to go for more. I know this because i was subpoenaed to testify about his pain and prior lack of back/ vertebral injuries with the exception of mild degenerative arthritis consistent with his age.  I really felt this case was a lock ( it was early in my career and since then i learned a great deal about the court system, and eventually did consultant work both for and against DRS for  firms and for malpractice insurance companies defending DRS, in an attempt to help them decide if a case might warrant pursuing before they might dump 50k in discovery , only to lose at trial. Firms do all they can to be certain they will have a high probability of winning before going to trial , and  ITS A FACT IT IS EXTREMELY LUCRATIVE FOR ATTORNEYS who only need to hit on a couple of cases a year to be very well compensated.).    

      Sadly, and beyond all logic , the jury was somehow convinced there was doubt that the fall and fractures could result in chronic pain in a geriatric , very sympathetic man in my eyes, and they REWARDED HIM ZERO,,,NADA,,,ZIP ,,( I don’t know but i am only inferring they were never made aware of the companies settlement offer prior to the elderly gentleman pushing to go to court ) and he lost all the proposed settlement plus all the attorneys fees he also was now responsible for.   It was terrible ; IMHO this guy was not a faker in the years i had cared for him, and i actually remember being brought to tears as he told me the outcome ( i was only present in court a couple of days testifying and had to be back at my office seeing regular patients so I didn’t know until he returned to my office later  and filled me in on the sad turn of events).  I never did find out why the jury went against him , rewarding him noting.  The company must have found a very convincing expert who somehow negated what i thought was a strong case. Maybe the jury thought he was greedy or they just didn’t like him; going to trial is a roll of the dice,,,,i mean OJ wasn’t guilty?!?  

 

     That case forever changed my perception of our legal system; you never want to go to a jury trial because you never know why , or what influences a jury.  My point from experience is that if TYROD IS pushing this , and knowing the procedure he had done and having done it probably hundreds of times over a long career while explaining to people  that pneumothorax is a known risk,  and  one happening is usually not an indication of malpractice or malicious negligence because when nerve blocks or trigger points are done along a rib or into the muscles of ones back , despite all the  steps you can take to lessen the risk , everyone is different and the risk is never zero!  I just think it’s a tough malpractice case to prove and Tyrod might find out even if the DR made a mistake, a jury is a scary thing/group to place your faith in.  To this day  I still remember that poor man and i was 100% certain he was injured by his septic tank  fall , but maybe he would have gotten closure or justice had he just not looked at it as a gravy train and accepted the initial offer !?

 

    One last true story ;  i was just out of residency and just started working for my new employer who was a really smart, good dr who owned the urgent care centers i started in to get me down to Florida and away from cold Ohio.  He came in one day with pain in his traps and around his scapula from working out. He walked in ( he happened to be a very experienced ER DR ) while i was on duty and asked if i could do a trigger point injection in the areas to speed up his recovery. I had done many before and had been trained by a very well known rheumatologist who was also  a power lifter and a perfectionist as a dr. So i told my boss / employer dr , no problem and i felt very confident. Right before i was about to give him the injection he blurted out, “ you better not drop my lung”!    WHAT!?!  LOL !  I hadn’t even thought of that because i was young, cocky and still very inexperienced compared to him! !  Lol,,,thank God things went ok but i still remember the anxiety he triggered and even being a little fearful as i was doing the injection even tho i had done lots of them with no issue. Lol,,,,i bet the guy who did TYROD will never forget that day and i bet he always feels a little queasy and anxious thinking about it.   No DOC ever want to harm someone, TYROD, and no amount of money awarded will recover your job or punish the dr more than he has probably caused himself since it happened. 

     GO BILLS!  ( Floyd will be our  defensive mvp , great signing, cant wait to watch him and I’m thinking he will be what we hoped von would be !). 

 

 

[DrPJax]

On 8/5/2023 at 9:44 AM, Mr. WEO said:

 

It's a non-jury trial.

 

Even if there was a jury, the plaintiff's expert witness would have to conjure up something (or fabricate it) to convince the jury that the defendant didn't act properly during the procedure. 

Thanks for the info. , I didn’t know that. Is it going to mediation ?    Hope you are doing great and getting ready for an exciting season!  Really tough schedule this year; if they finally win it all they will have proven they are right up there with the great 90’s teams. The afc looks brutal!  I think the D will finally be real under Mcd.   it looks like we will finally have a true running game, be able to finish games off and have a real presence in the red zone with the power backs and a rookie tight end who could be a real threat like kelce. Hope they stay healthy. Best wishes and hoping you have a quiet weekend!  

Edited August 7, 2023 by DrPJax

[BarleyNY]

14 hours ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

yeah the claim is dumb.

 

When there is no settlement, then the insurance company is very confident that they will successfully defend the suit in court.  

 

At this point, the odds overwhelmingly favor the Defendant----75% of jury verdicts find for the Defendants.

 

Tyrod's lawyer is stuck with a moron form a client and this will cost that poor sap a ton in unrecovered billable hours.

 

15 hours ago, FireChans said:

@Doc

@Mr. WEO

@Kirby Jackson

 

Calling the boys back in!

 

https://unicourt.com/case/ca-la23-tyrod-d-taylor-vs-david-s-gazzaniga-md-et-al-690760

 

No settlement!  Tygod is going to trial!

 

Settlements are usually agreed upon just prior to the start of the trial. Sometimes they even happen during the trial. So the lack of one at this stage means nothing.

 

As mentioned earlier, insurance companies will almost always offer a settlement to avoid the costs of defense and the possibility of a catastrophic decision (more for cases involving juries). This case will almost certainly conclude with a settlement for an undisclosed sum. So those arguing for or against the merits of the case won’t have anything conclusive in that regard. 

Edited August 5, 2023 by BarleyNY

[Doc]

15 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Settlements are usually agreed upon just prior to the start of the trial. Sometimes they even happen during the trial. So the lack of one at this stage means nothing.

 

As mentioned earlier, insurance companies will almost always offer a settlement to avoid the costs of defense and the uncertainty of a jury decision (which can be catastrophic). This case will almost certainly conclude with a settlement for an undisclosed sum. So those arguing for or against the merits of the case won’t have anything conclusive in that regard. 

 

It might possibly conclude with a settlement, but likely will be a loss for Taylor.  Again it's a known complication and he was only a short-time starter.

[BarleyNY]

11 minutes ago, Doc said:

 

It might possibly conclude with a settlement, but likely will be a loss for Taylor.  Again it's a known complication and he was only a short-time starter.

 

Not sure what you mean by a settlement “likely” being “a loss for Taylor”. If the case concludes with an undisclosed settlement then we won’t know who “won” the case or by how much. 

[Doc]

3 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

Not sure what you mean by a settlement “likely” being “a loss for Taylor”. If the case concludes with an undisclosed settlement then we won’t know who “won” the case or by how much. 

 

 I meant instead of a settlement it will likely be a loss for Taylor.  Meaning no money.

[Mr. WEO]

57 minutes ago, DrPJax said:

Thanks for the info. , I didn’t know that. Is it going to mediation ?    Hope you are doing great and getting ready for an exciting season!  Really tough schedule this year; if they finally win it all they will have proven they are right up there with the great 90’s teams. The afc looks brutal!  I think the D will finally be real under Mcd and it looks like we will finally have a true running game and be able to finish games off and have a real presence in the red zone with the power backs and a rookie tight end who could be a real threat like kelce. Hope they stay healthy. Best wishes and hoping you have a quiet weekend!  

 

Doesn't look like mediation.  Same to you brother!  Should be a much better finish to the season than last. 

 

Weekend is already busy...

 

35 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

 

Settlements are usually agreed upon just prior to the start of the trial. Sometimes they even happen during the trial. So the lack of one at this stage means nothing.

 

As mentioned earlier, insurance companies will almost always offer a settlement to avoid the costs of defense and the possibility of a catastrophic decision (more for cases involving juries). This case will almost certainly conclude with a settlement for an undisclosed sum. So those arguing for or against the merits of the case won’t have anything conclusive in that regard. 

 

What makes you say this?  

 

Also, it is the Plaintiff's lawyer that pushes for a settlement.  They know that 75% of verdicts find for the defendant. 

 

5 minutes ago, BarleyNY said:

 

Not sure what you mean by a settlement “likely” being “a loss for Taylor”. If the case concludes with an undisclosed settlement then we won’t know who “won” the case or by how much. 

 

A settlement is always a loss for the Defendant.

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Depending upon the judge's ruling, either Tyrod or Dr. G becomes the butler for the other guy. 🤔

*
You're right... I probably do watch too many 'Seinfeld' reruns.