DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lucylastic holy shit, ok, maybe Im channeling this story http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/bizarre/lawsuit-doctor-branded-patients-uterus Okay, okay, okay, okay, okay... they filed a lawsuit against the surgeon who branded her uterus, during a surgery to remove the uterus?!? WTF?!? She wasn't materially harmed. There was no risk of future damage because it was removed. From the lawsuit: quote:
II. Counti 1-Intentional infliction of mental and emotional distress (outrage) ... 10. The actions ... using a heat cauterizing instrument to brand ... when there was no medical reason for it, and delivery of the tape to the Plaintiffs for viewing were intentional, degrading, reckless, outrageous, and intolerable, and offend generally accepted standards of decency and morality. 11. The Plaintiffs suffered severe mental and emotional distress, embarrassment, and humiliation by the Defendant's actions and by what they saw on the video tape, and the Defendants knew that seeing the video would have that affect on any normal person. ... III Count 2-Battery ... 15. The actions... constitute an intentional, harmful, and offensive contact with the person of the Plaintiff and constitute the tort of battery. IV. Count 3-Loss of Consortium ... 17. As a direct result of the Defendants' actions described above, Plaintiff David Means has suffered a loss of consortium with his wife Stephanie and is entitled to damages pursuant to KRS.413.145 Count 3? Seriously? He lost the ability to have normal familial relations with his wife because a Dr cauterized initials into her uterus that he was removing? Seriously?!? Good Lord. 1. I don't understand why the Dr would do that. Goes along with my statement of being blown away by how some people think. 2. I do believe this lawsuit goes a bit too far in it's claims. I suppose the lawyers gin up as much as possible to make sure something sticks. What a stupid situation. Seriously stupid.
_____________________________
What I support: - A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|