Skip to comments.
Florida Jury Awards Family $25.8M in Wrongful Death Lawsuit Against Walgreen Co.
Associated Press via Fox News.com ^
| August6 18, 2007
Posted on 08/18/2007 10:37:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-196 next last
To: Kaslin
God, why don’t they ever have screw ups like this for me with pain meds? lol
141
posted on
08/19/2007 2:56:41 PM PDT
by
KoRn
(Just Say NO ....To Liberal Republicans - FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT!)
To: DakotaRed
I thought you were replying to my hypothetical case i posted, not the florida one. You obviously didn't read anything else that I wrote, did you?
If you believe an attorney committed malpractice in representing you, by all means seek out an attorney and hold him responsible. You will be suprised to find that lawyers don't protect crappy attorneys the way doctors protect those they know to be incompetent.
Attorneys carry malpractice insurance, same as doctors. But you aren't really interested in the facts, are you?
142
posted on
08/19/2007 2:57:33 PM PDT
by
jdub
To: DakotaRed; jdub
I don't think that jdub was saying that THIS lady lost both her feet. He was asking about another case, maybe real, maybe hypothetical, I don't know.
At least that's how I read his post. I would be interest in hearing you reaction to that factual situation.
143
posted on
08/19/2007 2:57:49 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
To: ktscarlett66
I, too, was confused about why the Warfarin was prescribed. Perhaps this is just very bad reporting.
But the central fact is that the warfarin was dispensed in such excessive doses that it caused a hemorrhagic stroke, which is almost always devastating and was here. Why it was prescribed and what affect it had on her cancer is interesting, but probably not all that relevant to the case.
I, too, try to always check my prescriptions. But many people don't even see their scripts and wouldn't know what a proper dose was if they did. They don't know what the generic for a brand name is, or sometimes even what they are taking a medication for. Sometimes they are old or sick, and someone else handles their medication. There should be a lot more patient counseling by the pharmacist than there is, but even then, to expect very many people to catch a medication error is expecting a lot.
144
posted on
08/19/2007 3:08:34 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
To: jdub
She poured it on herself. Nice straw man argument though!
145
posted on
08/19/2007 3:22:17 PM PDT
by
packrat35
(PIMP my Senate. They're all a bunch of whores anyway!)
To: jdub
Apparently discussing the subject of this thread isn’t what interests you. Silly me, I read the article this thread is based upon instead of a hypothetical.
I guess hypotheticals are more factual to you than actual cases.
146
posted on
08/19/2007 3:24:23 PM PDT
by
DakotaRed
(Liberals don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
To: jdub
You will be suprised to find that lawyers don't protect crappy attorneys the way doctors protect those they know to be incompetent.I find this interesting. Can you link to any cses of an attorney suing another attorney, expecially some of the larger lawfirms?
147
posted on
08/19/2007 3:27:44 PM PDT
by
DakotaRed
(Liberals don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
To: Iwo Jima
jdub stated his “case” was hypothetical. Sorry, but I don’t consider “hypotheticals” as “factual situations.”
Of course, diverting the attention of a thread into a “hypothetical” can be a crafty method of winning an argument without addressing the actual facts of the subject.
148
posted on
08/19/2007 3:31:02 PM PDT
by
DakotaRed
(Liberals don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
To: packrat35
wrong. That McDonalds had received previous complaints that they were re-heating their coffee to such a high temperature that people were getting burned. So is it not reasonable that a person who gets coffee at the drive through might put the cup between their legs? And is it also not foreseeable that in the course of driving you might spill that coffee on yourself? If so, then is it reasonable to hand someone a cup of coffee that you know is hot enough to burn them, and that SOMEONE is eventually going to spill it on themselves? Now if she had poured it on her head on purpose, you might have an argument.
149
posted on
08/19/2007 3:33:33 PM PDT
by
jdub
To: DakotaRed
jdub stated his case was hypothetical. Sorry, but I dont consider hypotheticals as factual situations.for my own reasons I posted it as a hypothetical. trust me, it happened.
150
posted on
08/19/2007 3:38:11 PM PDT
by
jdub
To: DakotaRed
Apparently discussing the subject of this thread isnt what interests you. Silly me, I read the article this thread is based upon instead of a hypothetical. I guess hypotheticals are more factual to you than actual cases.i think we pretty much exhausted the merits of the case sometime yesterday afternoon.
151
posted on
08/19/2007 3:39:51 PM PDT
by
jdub
To: Iwo Jima
"If you're not at fault, it's a nuisance, but for crying out loud, get over it. It's just part of living in a free society. So you have to report it everytime you get malpractice insurance? Boo hoo, cry me a river. If that's that worst thing you have to complain about, you have led an incredibly blissful life."
Just a "nuisance" to have your name dragged through the mud, and accused of something you didn't do? How would you like that to be done to you? Now have it done three times. Now have someone tell you you're "not permitted" to have a low opinion of lawyers in general.
152
posted on
08/19/2007 3:40:04 PM PDT
by
boop
(Trunk Monkey. Is there anything he can't do?)
To: DakotaRed
I find this interesting. Can you link to any cses of an attorney suing another attorney, expecially some of the larger lawfirms?Perhaps, but I'm kinda busy. I've been assigned by the great lawyer conspiracy to dream up some baseless, frivolous lawsuit against some internal medicine doctor in Washington State.
153
posted on
08/19/2007 3:50:21 PM PDT
by
jdub
To: jdub
You just admitted they spilled it on themselves. END OF STORY
154
posted on
08/19/2007 4:10:38 PM PDT
by
packrat35
(PIMP my Senate. They're all a bunch of whores anyway!)
To: jdub
If you state a case as “hypothetical,” don’t blame others if they don’t accept it as “factual.”
155
posted on
08/19/2007 4:43:55 PM PDT
by
DakotaRed
(Liberals don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
To: jdub
When you’re not so “busy,” I’d appreciate reading about it. I don’t doubt you, I've just never read anything about it.
As for your “frivolous lawsuit against some internal medicine doctor in Washington State,” sarcasm is very unbecoming. That being said, if they were wrong or negligent, I’m all for suing them for a reasonable judgment, if they made no effort at compensating for their wrongful or negligent acts or the effort was wanting.
It is the excessive and outrageous I disagree with.
BTW, since you are in to “dreaming up baseless, frivolous lawsuits,” what do you think about another one? One where we could have a class action lawsuit against the Democrat party for all Viet Nam Veterans for the valor they stole from us for their shameful actions back then? I’ll join in on that one, if you and IJ are willing to handle it, or whatever large law firm you know of will take it.
Maybe we could even help our Troops today counter all the negativity from the left and from the lamestream media as well.
Whaddaya say?
156
posted on
08/19/2007 4:54:20 PM PDT
by
DakotaRed
(Liberals don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
To: DakotaRed
Hypotheticals are a perfectly valid way of learning, teaching, or proving a point. Jesus Christ taught through the use of hypotheticals (he called them "parables"). Medical school teaches medical students through hypotheticals. Law schools use them, too. Board certification examiners use hypotheticals to test their examinees.
There is nothing wrong with a well constructed hypothetical, which jdub's was. You'll have to think of another reason to avoid his question.
157
posted on
08/19/2007 5:51:44 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
To: packrat35
Neither am I. I know some, though. They are mostly medical malpractice defense lawyers.
158
posted on
08/19/2007 5:52:51 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
To: packrat35; jdub; boop; Mamzelle; All
Lookie here, folks. LOOKIE HERE, LOOKIE HERE.
We have here maybe the ONLY person in America who thinks that the 2nd OJ trial -- in which the civil jury found OJ was negligent and ordered him to pay damages even though the criminal trial found him not guilty -- was a BAD THING!
This proves the vicious, emotional, hysterical, illogical, maniacal, lunatic ravings of some anti-lawyer attackers, including scum-sucking packrat35. Who wants to align themselves with packrat35?
Class? Class? Anyone? Anyone?
Bueller?
Packrat35, are you really OJ Simpson?
159
posted on
08/19/2007 6:02:46 PM PDT
by
Iwo Jima
("Close the border. Then we'll talk.")
To: Iwo Jima
I’m not avoiding any question, I’m dealing in the subject of this thread, the wrongful death or a woman in Florida.
You need to come up with a better reason to hijack the thread away from the initial subject matter.
Funnier still, I just went back and looked at every single comment I’ve made and that you two made directed to me. In not one can I find any “hypothetical yet factual situation addressed to me.” It was you who blasted in at me demanding I support my views with him later chiming in with his well timed braying supporting you demanding I address some “hypothetical situation” directed at someone else, apparently.
My apologies if I don’t hang on every word you two say to others. Quite frankly, you have impressed me even less than I imagine I impress you.
Maybe, he “hypothetically” asked me a question? I don’t intend to go and search for this “hypothetical situation” he says he made.
160
posted on
08/19/2007 6:12:49 PM PDT
by
DakotaRed
(Liberals don't rattle sabers, they wave white flags)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140, 141-160, 161-180, 181-196 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson