Justified?


Gut reaction - yes. This isn't a case of (which a search say sis extremely unlikely) of tubes partially reconnecting. This is a case of fraud, perpetrated on the patient and insurance carrier.

I would even say there should be criminal charges, revocation of the medical license, and would even support the malpractice insurance carrier denying any claim related to this.
 
Gut reaction - yes. This isn't a case of (which a search say sis extremely unlikely) of tubes partially reconnecting. This is a case of fraud, perpetrated on the patient and insurance carrier.

I would even say there should be criminal charges, revocation of the medical license, and would even support the malpractice insurance carrier denying any claim related to this.
Do you think it should be a one time settlement, or continuing monthly child support payments until the child reaches adulthood?
 
It was an interesting case, because of a couple of different issues. In the end, even though I assume you were asking for a legal based take, I'll answer this more with equity than legality and I'll say that the doctor having to pay makes sense if he's held to be guilty of the actions in question.
Which do you think is more likely? A one time settlement or a monthly charge until the child turns 18?
 
Which do you think is more likely? A one time settlement or a monthly charge until the child turns 18?


I'd expect a variability there, either because of state law or personal choice. One thing to consider, for example, would be the possibility that the doctor could lose the ability to practice, thus slashing his income. So, say, a young doctor who was still building a practice might give you a different preference than an established doctor with a lot of money and/or equity at his disposal.
 
I'd expect a variability there, either because of state law or personal choice. One thing to consider, for example, would be the possibility that the doctor could lose the ability to practice, thus slashing his income. So, say, a young doctor who was still building a practice might give you a different preference than an established doctor with a lot of money and/or equity at his disposal.
Thank you.
 
Thank you.


Your case reminds me of the El Paso case, which is one I find interesting because of the impact of various laws on the decision. The surprised mother in that case is Grissel Velasco.
 
Back
Top