The lawsuit lotteries [NA]

[poadeleted3]

A worker accidentally cuts the tip of his finger off at the first knuckle in a custard machine. 30 minutes later, some guy comes in and buys some custard, and finds the fingertip in his purchase. Plenty of time to reattach it. But, he refuses to return it, saying on the way out the door that he's calling his attorney and the tv stations. Clearly, someone who thinks he's won the lawsuit lottery, and to me someone who is utterly heartless and uncaring about the lifetime of loss he's causing the person who has suffered a tragic accident and who's finger he's refused to return. He could have returned the finger and still had whatever he needed for his "lottery ticket."

Now, it's too late to reattach the finger, the guy who found it froze it which destroyed any chance of doing so anyway. He's been showing this poor person's finger off all over the news, has his lawyer, and is clearly, to me, planning to sue the place he bought the custard.

Fine and dandy, I suppose. Now I wonder, though, if his lawyer has said a word to him about the lawsuit he is likely going to face from the real victim of tragedy, the person who suffered a horrible accident at work, and the person who his actions have harmed? That worker will now have to live the rest of their life without that part of their finger, when it could have easily been reattached had he not refused to return it. It would be really nice to see some real justice come from the tort system for once, IMHO.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/06/finger.fight.ap/index.html

 

[wbarnhill]

Joe, for the most part I agree. The guy is fishing for some big bucks, regardless of how many times he says he's still thinking about whether or not to file. But here's what I don't get.

Say you lose a fingertip in a machine. Needless to say there's going to be blood and tissue, plus said fingertip in the machine. So when it's near food, you've got quite the issue of sanitation present. Now, you're saying 30 minutes later the guy comes in and buys the ice cream with said fingertip in it. Why oh why in the HELL wasn't the process stopped IMMEDIATELY after the accident in order to find the finger and clean up the mess that could very well get this shop shut down by DHEC? That is the only way I still kinda side with the guy that found the finger. Yes, he's an ass for not returning it to the kid, but the store should have taken immediate action to find the finger and get the worker to the hospital.

As a side note, they said that freezing the finger killed the cells and made it unable to be reattached. So, what about the time it spent in the ice cream? Would that have already done damage to it? Just curious.

 

[Eamon]

Why oh why in the HELL wasn't the process stopped IMMEDIATELY after the accident in order to find the finger and clean up the mess that could very well get this shop shut down by DHEC? .

Actually the customer was at the drive up while it all happened. The hurt worker ran to the bathroom & the serving worker served the finger not knowing her co-worker was hurt. The guy returned back later........

I would sue the guy if it were my finger

The police should have insisted the finger be returned immediately.

Unless you got AIDS from the finger, you suit should be dropped...... But like the "Hot Coffee @ Micky D's" person the guy will prolly be rich now.

 

[wbarnhill]

Ah. From Joe's statement, it made it seem like there was a good amount of time between sever and server. Okay, I retract my previous statement. Give the guy with the finger the finger.

 

[inav8r]

I guess the guy who lost his finger should sue the guy who kept is finger - that way if he does win anything from the company the fingerless employee will at least be compensated for his lost digit.

 

[grattonja]

Nobody should sue anybody on this one. It was an accident. End of story. I have been on job sites where people have cut off a finger, and no one thought to get it for reattachment until it was too late. A sad thing, but IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. And I didn't sue anyone for having to handle said finger or stand around in the blood that was spilled. Not every accident or incident on this planet is a lawsuit.

Finding a finger in your food is yucky. But being grossed out is not a tort basis, in my opinion.

And, please, don't blame the attorneys for litigant greed. People are willing to sue over anything. There are always going to be people willing to represent those people. And, never forget, on the stupid McDonald's coffee case, a jury was willing to find liability AND award a big money hit. Can't blame an attorney for willingness to take a case like that. You have to fault more than attorney judgment there.

Until this country gets over the feeling that we all have a right to be safe, absolutely happy and secure in everything that we do, you will continue to see this sort of lawsuit mentality. "Kill all the lawyers" and these people will be proceeding pro-se.

Sorry. Rant over. And this from one of your resident attorneys.

Jim G

 

[poadeleted3]

Nobody should sue anybody on this one. It was an accident. End of story. I have been on job sites where people have cut off a finger, and no one thought to get it for reattachment until it was too late. A sad thing, but IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. And I didn't sue anyone for having to handle said finger or stand around in the blood that was spilled. Not every accident or incident on this planet is a lawsuit.
snip
Jim G

Normally I'd agree. My feelings on the "lawsuit mentality" of this country have been expressed more than once. BUT, I don't see anything even remotely accidental about the actions of the guy refusing to return the worker's finger so it could be reattached. He thought hanging on to it would enrich him, and in so doing seems to have deliberately contributed to the worker's permanent injury. That's behavior that buys a lawsuit, IMHO.

 

[corjulo]

Nobody should sue anybody on this one. It was an accident. End of story. I have been on job sites where people have cut off a finger, and no one thought to get it for reattachment until it was too late. A sad thing, but IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. And I didn't sue anyone for having to handle said finger or stand around in the blood that was spilled. Not every accident or incident on this planet is a lawsuit.

Finding a finger in your food is yucky. But being grossed out is not a tort basis, in my opinion.

And, please, don't blame the attorneys for litigant greed. People are willing to sue over anything. There are always going to be people willing to represent those people. And, never forget, on the stupid McDonald's coffee case, a jury was willing to find liability AND award a big money hit. Can't blame an attorney for willingness to take a case like that. You have to fault more than attorney judgment there.

Until this country gets over the feeling that we all have a right to be safe, absolutely happy and secure in everything that we do, you will continue to see this sort of lawsuit mentality. "Kill all the lawyers" and these people will be proceeding pro-se.

Sorry. Rant over. And this from one of your resident attorneys.

Jim G

Totally Agree. And chances are a jury is going to see it that way also. Despite what insurance companies keep saying actually jury awards are down..in many states way down.

The guy can huff and buff all he wants but in the end he won't get a much. It was a reasonable accident. I agree the person who's looking at a nice settlement is the guy (or Gal) who lost the finger. Joe, Would you agree he (or She) has a right to file suit over his lost finger?

 

[Anthony]

And, please, don't blame the attorneys for litigant greed. People are willing to sue over anything. There are always going to be people willing to represent those people. And, never forget, on the stupid McDonald's coffee case, a jury was willing to find liability AND award a big money hit. Can't blame an attorney for willingness to take a case like that. You have to fault more than attorney judgment there.

I agree its the plaintiffs who think they're going to win the lottery, judges that don't throw the law suits out and stupid juries swayed by pure emotion. However, Jim, you probably recognize there is a huge number of attorneys advertising the contingency fee system and that "you won't pay a dime, until I've won money for you". The knee jerk reaction of many individuals (usually on the lower socio-economic scale) is to sue everyone and let the courts sort it out. The attorneys just enable this stuff. Sad state of affairs.

 

[grattonja]

I agree its the plaintiffs who think they're going to win the lottery, judges that don't throw the law suits out and stupid juries swayed by pure emotion. However, Jim, you probably recognize there is a huge number of attorneys advertising the contingency fee system and that "you won't pay a dime, until I've won money for you". The knee jerk reaction of many individuals (usually on the lower socio-economic scale) is to sue everyone and let the courts sort it out. The attorneys just enable this stuff. Sad state of affairs.

I don't like the attorney advertising any more than many of you do. Despite my frequent promise to myself to avoid political posts, I know I was on record over on the AOPA board saying I don't like the advertising. I think much of it is of dubious professionalism. However, I don't entirely agree that the attorneys enable the system. They advertise a service, and one that will not cost the client up front. But people are out there ripe to sue, and the system is in place to let them sue.

Many people in this country today cannot afford the cars they drive, as an example. The dealerships are out there advertising low lease rates, etc with tiny fine print talking about the balloon payments at the end. Are they enabling the greed of people who want a mercedes on a bargain basement salary? Arguably they are, but no one is out thee yelling about car marketing sales reform. But they are also serving a market that is obviously ripe. You cannot blame the car companies for that.

Or the companies that will let you take a second mortgage on your home, so that you can take that vacation you always wanted. They are arguably enabling consumer debt, but we don't talk reform there either. Again, the market is there and they serve it.

We in this country can't fix everything by regulation or rule to keep people from being stupid or doing dumb things. People will be stupid, so it has been since the dawn of time and so it will continue to be. They will be greedy and stupid and self serving and occasionally self destructive. And some out there will always be poised to take advantage of that.

I don't know what we do to fix the tort laws and the jury verdicts in this country. But, please don't forget the bottom line to some of these jury verdicts is just that, a jury. Citizens, hauled in off the street for jury duty, many of whom have the same beliefs as many of the people on this web board and the AOPA board. WE are the jurors who award these huge damage verdicts. We all say we want tort reform (and I certainly agree that hot coffee burns from a Mc'Donalds coffee are not worth millions) and control over jury awards but we are also the fodder for these juries.

I guess I don't know where the disconnect is between what we all say we want to see happen and what these juries award. I can tell you, having picked somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 criminal juries in my career, the folks on the jury panels are the same as us on this board. Some blue collar, some blue blood, and many in between. Unemployed folks and Board presidents. Academics and contractors and conservatives and liberals and civil libertarians and everything in between. And picking a jury for any trial is a truly "hit and miss" process as to what you get in the end. Sometimes, it seems almost random.

I don't agree that the guy who lost the finger has a suit, any more than I think the greedy sod who took the finger has a suit. You use that stupid custard machine, you assume liability. Same as those of us who rely on our vacuum pumps in actual, we all assume some risk. I use a skill saw at home. I am not going to sue the manufacturer if I cut my finger off. Tough luck. My bad. I am going to remember, every time I see that missing fingertip, not to stick my finger in there ever again. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We all need to assume it more. Period.

Sorry. Ranting again. This issue really bothers me. All of us on this board know, any time we fire up the mags, today may be the day that engine throws a rod through the block, and we will have to find a field to land in. We know it and we accept it. How many of us have had talks with spouses about not suing if something bad happens? My wife and I have. I fly because I love to and I accept the consequences if something bad happens. Thus is life. Look at the string on risky stuff. We know what we are doing, and people know when they are accepting risk.

Suing should be about when someone has made a product where the risk is not obvious. Hey, I own guns. If I point one at myself and pull the trigger I know the risk. On the other hand, if someone builds a car that is going to blow up in an accident, and they knew it, built it anyway, and didn't tell anyone there is a risk, that may be fair game for a suit.

But we all have to live with the simple consequences of our own actions every day.

Jim G

 

[bbchien]

That is very refreshing to hear. Very very refreshing.

 

[inav8r]

I don't agree that they guy who lost the finger has a suit, any more than I think the greedy sod who took the finger has a suit. You use that stupid custard machine, you assume liability.

In my earlier post I only feel the guy who lost his finger has a suit against the dude who kept it from him out of greed... Not because he used the custard machine and lost it accidentally or due to stupidity.

 

[Anthony]

Jim. The bottom line is we are all accountable for our actions. So, after reading your last post, my thoughts align with yours. Or society has drfited towards no personal accountability. If we keep in mind we ARE personally accountable people should be able to resist the advertising and easy access to sue, new cars, cigarrettes, fast food, alcohol, drugs, etc.

If people just said NO to easy access, frivolous law suits, the advertising would go away, but a large part of our population just doesn't have the character to do that.

 

[inav8r]

I know this is unrelated, but I have to chime in here. I, being someone who had to sue my OWN car insurance company to get them to pay up on the policy that I bought, I think a lot of this (ambulance chasing lawyers) has been caused by insurance companies themselves.

 

[corjulo]

How many of us have walk away from what others would have sued over. I know I have. More then once. How about anyone else?

 

[Kyle Thornley]

I have a saying "no one gets out of life alive". When my number comes up, it's up. I always hope that it wasn't something stupid I did, but yes, my wife and I do have the agreement that suing over a risk that I took just isn't going to happen. She'll get my life insurance and she'll grieve (maybe (o and then she'll get on with her march to the inevitable. Besides my faith says that's really just the beginning.....

 

[grattonja]

I think what got me so riled up about lawsuits was the recent one that basically put a vacuum pump business out of business. The Carnahan accident scenario, and the ensuing lawsuit really upset me. Clearly, the NTSB supported a finding that the vacuum pump was functioning properly, and you had experienced pilots, willing to put their fate in their own hands, who were at the helm.

I sat down with my wife, who is also a pilot, and basically said that I did not want her to sue under circumstances like this. We all train partial panel for the instrument rating. We are the captains of our own fate under those circumstances. For better or for worse, what happens in the end is as much a function of our own mettle as it is that of some company making a product somewhere. My wife agreed and we both decided that we would not sue under circumstances like those of the Carnahan matter. We would each know that the other had passed on doing something that they really wanted to be doing, and doing it as well as they could. And we would accept that.

I fly because I love to fly. If fate or whatever decrees that I die flying, then so be it. In the meantime, I will keep myself partial panel current, and make sure that I do all that I can to even the odds in the event of an equipment failure. It just really saddened me to see someone who clearly comes from an aviation family suing, for what looked on it's face like the wrong reasons (a certain amount of denial), when someone died doing what they loved to do.

Accidents are truly accidents. We train and keep current and safe to avoid and minimize the risks. But in the end, an accident is an accident. Aviation wise, or a finger in the machine. Life throws us curve balls, and what we do with them is what makes us great, or less than great. And it is how we learn as people.

I think pilots as a whole, liberals, democrats, rural folk and urban folk and different races, creeds, religions, etc, share one thing in common. The training and our own personal beliefs and feelings about ourselves, leads us to think that we are responsible for what happens to us, that we carry personal responsibility, and the benefits that come with that. We are free to fly where we want, and to see things that other people will never see. But we all know the weight of personal responsibility that comes with being solely responsible for our respective posteriors.

I think that is why tort reform always seems to strike a cord on this board, as folks just can't understand why the whole world seems willing to sue their fellow man for their individual woes. I never could understand that either.

You buy your ticket and you rides the ride.

Jim G

 

[AdamZ]

AMEN JIM !!! I was going to go on a rant but you did a damn fine job!!

Anthony: I have to disagree with you on one very important issue: "Access" Our society and our constitution dictate that all shall have equal access to the courts and right to counsel ( 5th and 6th Amendments) If not who determines who gets access to the courts, The Insurance companies, Lawyers, The Police, Business owners? Access is so important. We are increasingly loosing access to our legislative bodies IMO. We cannot loose access to our courts. That has a direct correlation to your concern regarding contingent fees. fore example say some poor Schmoe is truly injured by anothers negligent act. Say this guy is a minimum wage earner with a spouse and kid. No Way can he afford to pay an attorney an hourly rate, Filing fees, Service of process fees, expert fees, deposition fees, investigator fees etc. The only way to give him his constitutional right to access and an attorney is to allow contingent fees. Otherwise only the wealthy could afford access to the courts.

Joe: The problem in the custard/finger case is not a faulty system. Its that this guy is an unmitigated A$$ H0*& with no morals, compassion or sense of common decency. A lawyer didn't make him act the way he did Blame his mother or father for raising him that way . I understand his concern regarding AIDs or Hepatitis but that could have easily been tested for along with returning the finger. There are Whores, Thieves and Schmucks in every profession and in every walk of life, but we can't paint all judges lawyers or juries with the same brush. IMHO this guy could be prosecuted for what he did. For the life of me I don't understand why the cops didn't get involved or why a warrant wasn't issued for the finger! Then again you can't rely on the press for the entire story (Something this entire board actually agrees upon)

And what were they doing for 30 min after the guy lost his finger anyway?

Oh my seems I did go on a rant.

 

[grattonja]

Adam is right, that we have to be able to have access to the system, fair access, for the poor guy who is truly wronged. Without that, the rants that justice only happens for those who can afford it are legit.

I know only the same things that you all know about this incident. But I have to wonder, why was the equipment not shut down pronto and the finger retrieved immediately when this happened? I would say the company should have some policy about that sort of thing but... it just seems like common sense. "Oh s---, I got cut in this thing, can you shut it off right away?" No muss no fuss that way. Not that I am suggesting in any way the company should be sued for negligence. But I do bet they have a rule in place to avoid this happening again.

And that is what learning from accidents is all about.

Jim G

 

[AdamZ]

Jim: I posted the issue about access. Not sure if Joe agrees or not. By placing his name there I was trying to indicate a reply to his post. I apologize if My style made it seem like I was restating Joe's post or position.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Nobody should sue anybody on this one. It was an accident. End of story. I have been on job sites where people have cut off a finger, and no one thought to get it for reattachment until it was too late. A sad thing, but IT WAS AN ACCIDENT. And I didn't sue anyone for having to handle said finger or stand around in the blood that was spilled. Not every accident or incident on this planet is a lawsuit.

Finding a finger in your food is yucky. But being grossed out is not a tort basis, in my opinion.

And, please, don't blame the attorneys for litigant greed. People are willing to sue over anything. There are always going to be people willing to represent those people. And, never forget, on the stupid McDonald's coffee case, a jury was willing to find liability AND award a big money hit. Can't blame an attorney for willingness to take a case like that. You have to fault more than attorney judgment there.

Until this country gets over the feeling that we all have a right to be safe, absolutely happy and secure in everything that we do, you will continue to see this sort of lawsuit mentality. "Kill all the lawyers" and these people will be proceeding pro-se.

Sorry. Rant over. And this from one of your resident attorneys.

Jim G

Well said.

For every successful, greedy lawyer there has to be at least 12 idiots to sit on the jury and a judge that's worse than all of them put together.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I don't like the attorney advertising any more than many of you do. Despite my frequent promise to myself to avoid political posts, I know I was on record over on the AOPA board saying I don't like the advertising. I think much of it is of dubious professionalism. However, I don't entirely agree that the attorneys enable the system. They advertise a service, and one that will not cost the client up front. But people are out there ripe to sue, and the system is in place to let them sue.

Many people in this country today cannot afford the cars they drive, as an example. The dealerships are out there advertising low lease rates, etc with tiny fine print talking about the balloon payments at the end. Are they enabling the greed of people who want a mercedes on a bargain basement salary? Arguably they are, but no one is out thee yelling about car marketing sales reform. But they are also serving a market that is obviously ripe. You cannot blame the car companies for that.

Or the companies that will let you take a second mortgage on your home, so that you can take that vacation you always wanted. They are arguably enabling consumer debt, but we don't talk reform there either. Again, the market is there and they serve it.

We in this country can't fix everything by regulation or rule to keep people from being stupid or doing dumb things. People will be stupid, so it has been since the dawn of time and so it will continue to be. They will be greedy and stupid and self serving and occasionally self destructive. And some out there will always be poised to take advantage of that.

I don't know what we do to fix the tort laws and the jury verdicts in this country. But, please don't forget the bottom line to some of these jury verdicts is just that, a jury. Citizens, hauled in off the street for jury duty, many of whom have the same beliefs as many of the people on this web board and the AOPA board. WE are the jurors who award these huge damage verdicts. We all say we want tort reform (and I certainly agree that hot coffee burns from a Mc'Donalds coffee are not worth millions) and control over jury awards but we are also the fodder for these juries.

I guess I don't know where the disconnect is between what we all say we want to see happen and what these juries award. I can tell you, having picked somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 criminal juries in my career, the folks on the jury panels are the same as us on this board. Some blue collar, some blue blood, and many in between. Unemployed folks and Board presidents. Academics and contractors and conservatives and liberals and civil libertarians and everything in between. And picking a jury for any trial is a truly "hit and miss" process as to what you get in the end. Sometimes, it seems almost random.

I don't agree that the guy who lost the finger has a suit, any more than I think the greedy sod who took the finger has a suit. You use that stupid custard machine, you assume liability. Same as those of us who rely on our vacuum pumps in actual, we all assume some risk. I use a skill saw at home. I am not going to sue the manufacturer if I cut my finger off. Tough luck. My bad. I am going to remember, every time I see that missing fingertip, not to stick my finger in there ever again. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. We all need to assume it more. Period.

Sorry. Ranting again. This issue really bothers me. All of us on this board know, any time we fire up the mags, today may be the day that engine throws a rod through the block, and we will have to find a field to land in. We know it and we accept it. How many of us have had talks with spouses about not suing if something bad happens? My wife and I have. I fly because I love to and I accept the consequences if something bad happens. Thus is life. Look at the string on risky stuff. We know what we are doing, and people know when they are accepting risk.

Suing should be about when someone has made a product where the risk is not obvious. Hey, I own guns. If I point one at myself and pull the trigger I know the risk. On the other hand, if someone builds a car that is going to blow up in an accident, and they knew it, built it anyway, and didn't tell anyone there is a risk, that may be fair game for a suit.

But we all have to live with the simple consequences of our own actions every day.

Jim G

Well said.

That is why our GA flying and most aircraft cost three times or more than they're worth.

 

[poadeleted3]

Well said.

For every successful, greedy lawyer there has to be at least 12 idiots to sit on the jury and a judge that's worse than all of them put together.

Have you ever read the transcripts of some trials? It's stunning how little of the truth the lawyers will actually let those juries see. Sometimes, the lengths they will go to to keep the juries in the dark are truly amazing.

Did you know there are many places where lawyers directly contribute money to a judge hearing their case for his/her re-election campaign? Anywhere else, that's called bribery.

 

[poadeleted3]

Jim: I posted the issue about access. Not sure if Joe agrees or not. By placing his name there I was trying to indicate a reply to his post. I apologize if My style made it seem like I was restating Joe's post or position.

Joe's position on this particular matter is no more than what I've stated. To be more specific, I hope the knucklehead who kept the finger and denied the injured worker gets his butt sued off by the guy who's finger he kept. I think his deliberate and heartless actions caused material and life long damage. In fact, until a few minutes ago, I hadn't uttered a word about lawyers in this thread. I have no doubt he'll manage to win a claim against the resteraunt, whereas the worker will be limited to a worker's comp claim in most states. And I think the worker is the only really injured party here, since being grossed out isn't an injury.

As for lawyers and the state of our legal system in general, there are plenty of good ones like you and Jim around, but I think there are also plenty of dishonorable, dishonest ones around, and I feel the bar has failed in it's duty to control itself. As I've said before, I don't think we'll have true legal reform and true justice again in this country until the disciplinary system for lawyers is taken out of their hands and placed in the hands of impartial citizens. It works for cops, it'll work for lawyers. That, and loser pays.

Not all the blame for the state of our system can be laid at the feet of the non-lawyers. Out of curiousity, how many times have you seen a lawyer willing to sue another lawyer for filing repeated frivolous claims against a doctor to shake down settlement money? It took a doctor in West Virginia YEARS to find someone to take his case, which he eventually won. Would YOU be willing to launch a crusade to clean up your ranks, and start suing unethical lawyers for filing nuisance slip and fall cases? How long do you think it would take before the Bar Association found a reason to hammer you if you tried?

 

[Anthony]

Adam,

I have no problem with contingency fees, commissions and other forms of payment that happen after the "deal" is completed. And I have no problem with equal access to the courts. What I do have a problem with is individuals trying to shift the blame of their actions onto others for personal, monetary gain. I don't really even have a problem being bombarded by laywers advertising to call them if you've been injured. We live in a capitalist society and they have a right to advertise their services just like everyone else. Its annoying, sure but we have no Constitutional right to not be annoyed, offended, etc.

Oh wait! Those lawyer advertisements are creating a "hostile" environment which, now that I think about it does "offend" me and makes me feel "threatened". Hmmm, maybe I have a case after all.

 

[AdamZ]

Anthony: It appears that the real problem is that it is ones constitutional right to be a schmuck. Until that is changed we will always have some knuckle head out there crying that his coca cola was too bubbly!

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

Have you ever read the transcripts of some trials? It's stunning how little of the truth the lawyers will actually let those juries see. Sometimes, the lengths they will go to to keep the juries in the dark are truly amazing.

Did you know there are many places where lawyers directly contribute money to a judge hearing their case for his/her re-election campaign? Anywhere else, that's called bribery.

Sounds like sound business practice.

 

[sierra]

Unless you got AIDS from the finger,

pretty unlikely even if infected, through this route. unless the other guy immediately homogenized the finger and injected it into his eye. and even them, not good odds.

 

[bbchien]

The biggest fraud is perpetuated on the employee without health insurance. On the job injury...the comp carrier does some window dressing, refuses the definitive interventions (sends pt. to a "independent" (yeah right) medical opinion) who whitewashes the patient, the person is unable to work, has no redress, waits three years for the lawsuit. Starves, loses his house, etc. in the meantime. Usually a divorce, too.

I can't believe it is possible in 2005 to buy a negative medical opinion - a "good result" obtained in front of the administrative law judge....but it is. I routinely embarass the neighboring town's neurosurgeon who writes mounds of boilerplate at $500 per pop, no medicolegal responsibility, and knows if he writes "he's got something real" he does not get re-used by the compensation insuror

It's one huge racket. Just got done with a deposition today. Someone who was FIXED by a dorsal column stimulator and is back at work. A professional nurse, denied by the compensation carrier; hung on by working as a cafeteria cashier to keep her health insurance....which allowed me/us to get her fixed. Most JOES out in the workplace just get fired. And that's the end.