After a restful interlude, John Edwards has returned to his core competence – suing doctors.
From the Daily Reflector:
Edwards, 60, is one of three lawyers representing the parents of a 4-year-old Virginia boy who was 3 months old in 2009 when he was under the care of physicians and staff at Pitt County Memorial Hospital, now Vidant Medical Center. The hospital is accused of failing to ensure the baby received adequate oxygen, resulting in a brain injury.
On Tuesday, Edwards questioned and selected potential jurors to hear the case against University Health Systems of Eastern Carolina, now Vidant Health Systems, the umbrella organization that includes Vidant Medical Center, and Craig A. Sisson, an emergency room physician there in 2009.
I know nothing about the merits of the case; so I’ll say nothing other than his hair looked particularly coiffed in the photo.
A pity his political career suffered so badly from his scandals. Now we get to have him back in North Carolina in all his glory. Truly one of the worst of the worst. At least tort reform exists today.
Gotta wonder who he’s channeling this time. Lavoisier? Forel? John Hunter himself?
As I understand it, his prior common case was alleging that cerebral palsy was routinely caused by negligience, thereby winning emotionally difficult cases with claims that as we understood it were more than 90% of the time unrelated to any sort of negligence. I trust this time around that the defense is up to the often hard task of chosing highly qualified experts who can show real truth. If this case is going to trial, it seems likely that the defense is quite certain that no neglegience occurred or that no reasonable settlement amount could be agreed to.
It could’ve been worse. He could have become the president!
Interesting question:
Would the presence of a very famous attorney help the plaintiff’s case?
What if the attorney was famous for cheating on his terminally ill wife?
I know which way I would go. . . but I’m prejudiced.
We all know Edwards ethics and morals. Why would anyone have him represent them in a court of law?
Because he is famous…. Our society has gotten to the point that fame, more than ethics or even capabilities, matters. Very sad.
However, as mentioned, tort reform limits may not extinguish his flame… we hope.
These are hard cases to defend, the jury and people are affected by emotion, the plantiffs will show how disabled the child is and what he or she could have become , the parents and friends will be allowed to testify and they will cry on the stand, they can parade family members after family member to the stand. The hospital will not be alloweddo the same. Edwards is a con artist like most Plantiff Malpractice lawyers are. He will appeal very well to the emotions and hearts of the jury. If the defense has a hope of winning they are going to have to be theatrical to combat Edwards, This case will be decided a little on merit but more on emotion. Look at all the Silcone Breast Implant lawsuits won on no Merit. What kind of implants do we use today? Edwards will be on his glory with this case whatever the merits might be.
Many lawyers scorn him. I was told by one that traditionally lawyers would seek damages to the limit of the physician’s malpractice coverage. Edwards would seek more and drove some doctors into personal bankruptcy.
I wonder and wonder where has justice gone. I would understand lawyers such as Edwards if doctors could choose cases and management based on their potential for revenue. When merit is trumped by emotional pressures and restrictions to respond one can only hope to settle with not so stratospheric sum. That nowdays is called justice. Imagine the course if one of the sued doctors would be cheating on his terminally ill wife.
It is possible to counter elegant scum like Edwards. But you need a plan.
There are only two methods defense can use to fight against these kinds of suits:
1. Use CSI techniques that communicate to the jury in a statistical and scientific way.
2. If possible, explain to the jury that the child will NOT be left on a stoop in South Chicago to die in the cold, even if they rule against the plaintiff
Neither is easy to do. It may even be impossible to discuss the disposition of children who lose such cases. Usually they revert to State care. Plaintiff will object to your even bringing up this issue. The judge may even disallow it. But try you must.
When it comes to statistical and objective scientific data, the OLD teaching is that this will make juries fall asleep right in front of you.
Not so. Modern forensics has captivated the public. If defense attorney has the right skills, he/she can present this in an interesting way, using charts, evidence of children who HAVE improved despite over-whelming odds against them, and above all, point value systems that prove proper conservative care.
What do I mean by point value systems? You gather individual numerical “point values” for EACH conservative treatment tried, and demonstrate that defendant did a great deal to treat conservatively, or simply was not able to due to an acute emergency: “My client provided 150 conservative value points in the treatment of this patient PRIOR to his surgery!”
Juries like science if you present it correctly. If your attorney is unable to do that, you must hire consultants who can coach them and provide them with the data they need. This is a dance. An excellent defense attorney can still dance better than Edwards, but you must help him during the way and take an active part in your own defense. If you leave it entirely up to your own attorney, you have lost even before you started. Forget about Edwards. Do YOUR best to defend your case.
Michael M. Rosenblatt, DPM
I’ll bet when the case is concluded some of the jurors ask for his autograph!
He needs some Religion! He just doesn’t see, or apparently care, what his actions do to others! Unless, of course, with all his ill-gotten funds, he’s doing this pro-bono! It is for Lawyers like this, why lawyers have a bad name! Like us all, he’ll stand before God and have to give account for his life / actions. I don’t know about you, but I’d rather live poorly and have a good shot at Heaven (Wasn’t it the Mathematician Rene De’cart who devoted his later life to God, when he really realized/believed that the afterlife was forever, and that even a small increment in eternal improvement was worth any sacrifice?). Me thinks we’re gonna be held responsible for our actions, and that just “believing” isn’t going to be enough. I think counselor Edwards may have to account for all those Obstetricians he unfairly squeezed!
Mr Edwards was famous with me for winning many millions of Dollars from Ob’s, when most of C.P. cases were later proved not to be anyone’s fault!