TorteDeForm

Kia Franklin

Lawsuit to Follow Tragic Death of Seventh Grader

Tragic death of boy whose "superbug" was misdiagnosed as a common allergy. His mother intends to sue the city, as her $25 million notice of claim says, for "'incompetent, unskilled and improper' treatment at the Kings County emergency room from where Omar Rivera was sent home with the antihistamine Benadryl after showing up with a high fever and boils on his back - telltale signs of MRSA[, a staph infection]." More at NY Post.

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 5:40 PM, Oct 31, 2007 in Medical Malpractice
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

This case violates the Supreme Court decision holding clinical decisions are presumed correct. It also holds outcome bias, a violation of the fair hearing portion of the procedural due process rights of the potential defendants.

Every penny the hate filled plaintiff is allowed to extort, with the help of the land pirates, will come from the care of other poor children.

The families of these other children should understand where this money comes from. They should defend their access to care with street justice brought to this plaintiff, and her thievin' land pirates, including the one on the bench. Her animus represents an improper motive. All the land pirates involved should receive punishment in professional responsibility for permitting such a case to proceed. I hold the land pirate on the bench most responsible for the results.

The value of this child is infinite to the plaintiff. It is zero to the rest of us, and negative if she prevails.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 31, 2007 8:41 PM

Objections to expert testimony include the fact that it 1) is bought; 2) it is subjective opinion; 3) judges allow bogus testimony to let their campaign financing pals the tort litigators make a living.

One method no lawyer will ever allow is to demand 10 records of the expert for the same presenting symptoms. If the doctor has not treated 10 patients with the same presentation in his entire life, how much of an expert can he be?

How many children did the expert treat as he suggests is the standard of due care? If he sent a single patient home with benadryl who presented the same way, the case should be dimsissed. The expert should be indicted for perjury. The plaintiff and her land pirate should be made to pay triple the legal costs of the other side.

To deter.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | November 1, 2007 2:46 PM

"They should defend their access to care with street justice"??!!?? Are you serious? Really? (SIGH)

First, what good is "access to care" if the care is negligent? That's like saying a starving person deserves access to poisonous water. No--they deserve access to QUALITY care, care that meets the profession's standards, not care in which you ignore the classic signs of a terminal condition and instead prescribe an over the counter medicine for the common bug bite.

Second, what is this "street justice" of which you speak? You accuse lawyers of being criminal lovers, yet you are advocating violence against a mourning mother in order to preserve/defend negligent care of children, which in this case had the same effect of violence against the boy who died.

Posted by: Kia | November 8, 2007 11:06 AM

Kia: If the lawyer insists on maintaining its self-dealt immunity, then self-help is all that remains. Your support for ending all self-dealt land pirate immunities will save their rears. Isn't one of the aims of torts to prevent street justice?

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | November 10, 2007 11:40 PM