Group Project: At Least He Has His Health
Posted by on Monday, May 7, 2007 in - 9 comments
Make any general comments you may have here.
Get Impartial & confidential personal injury claims and injury claims advice.
A display of hideous graphics focused on the goal of figuring out where the smokestack I can see to the south is sitting.
Comments
Chris Taylor - May 7, 2007 2:42 PM
Or he could take his nice suit and chuck himself into a small island's volcano (The Big Woo?) on behalf of the orange-soda-drinking islanders, like the title character in <i>Joe vs. the Volcano</i>.
Alan - May 7, 2007 2:45 PM
omG! He is actually living the script of a 1980s B movie. Wow.
Gordo - May 7, 2007 2:49 PM
Isn't he officially a candidate for mental health treatment now? You're gonna die != go nuts with your money. Sheesh. The Americanization of the Western world continues.
cm - May 7, 2007 3:51 PM
He admits that it's his own fault he has no money left. No way could he win that court case. Right?
Gordo - May 7, 2007 3:52 PM
Ye Gods, one can hope.
Matt Fletcher - May 7, 2007 5:29 PM
Certainly it would seem ridiculous for the hospital/doctors to have to pay for Mr. Brandrick's spending spree. The hospital cannot be liable for all of the specific actions Mr. B took because of their incorrect diagnosis. If that were the case the hospital might feasibly be liable for every improper action and cost Mr. B incurred after his diagnosis. Theoretically he could blame every bad action and decision on the improper diagnosis - lost my wallet in March, it was the hospital's fault - forgot my anniversary, it was the hospital's fault etc.
The claims of Mr. B and the way the Globe frames the story does make the suit seem ridiculous. However, it does seem like a suit for some type of damages on the basis of such an erroneous diagnosis would not be totally unreasonable.
Jay Currie - May 7, 2007 7:24 PM
I like the fact that the hospital maintains in the last para that "The hospital has said that while it sympathizes with Mr. Brandrick, a review of his case showed no different diagnosis would have been made."
The old, "we were wrong then and we'd be just as wrong now" defence.
Alan - May 7, 2007 8:18 PM
There is a claim called "wrongful life" in which misdiagnoses related to severely disabled children are missed. I understand that the claim is not for general damages but only the extra costs of special needs of the child. Those costs are foreseeable. If the authors of <i>Joe vs. the Volcano</i> could foresee the reactions, should not the hospital?
portland - May 7, 2007 9:55 PM
he was living large for a year, enjoying himself like it was his last day on earth, having fun, everything right on edge. maybe he should pay the hospital.