Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Baltimore Sun)   Johns Hopkins pays $190 million settlement because a camera penis not part of standard gynecological exam   (baltimoresun.com) divider line 49
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

5607 clicks; posted to Main » on 22 Jul 2014 at 11:35 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-07-22 08:33:19 AM  
but a penis mightier.
 
2014-07-22 08:33:27 AM  
Because the women could not be identified from the images

That would be a really awkward mugshot book.
 
2014-07-22 11:36:26 AM  

Sybarite: Because the women could not be identified from the images

That would be a really awkward mugshot book.

Arby's Menu?

 
2014-07-22 11:36:39 AM  

Sybarite: Because the women could not be identified from the images

That would be a really awkward mugshot book.


It looks like a bulldog trying to eat mayonaise!
 
2014-07-22 11:41:03 AM  
At least you can tell the man loved his job.
 
2014-07-22 11:41:09 AM  
Can you identify if this is your vagina? What about this? Or this one? Oh, I guess you are right, you've never seen it from that angle...

Well, the fact that he killed himself probably settles the trial/guilty/punishment aspect. I wish more people were that considerate!
 
2014-07-22 11:41:15 AM  
The Go-Pro Gyno
 
2014-07-22 11:42:02 AM  

Sybarite: Because the women could not be identified from the images

That would be a really awkward mugshot book.


I'm pretty sure I could identify my own penis

/It's the one that's one inch long, and blackened by frostbite with parts of it missing from when they coyotes got hungry.
 
2014-07-22 11:45:08 AM  
If I were a lady I think I'd go to a women Dr.
 
2014-07-22 11:46:47 AM  

wichitaleaf: If I were a lady I think I'd go to a women Dr.


Not to a scribe?
 
2014-07-22 11:48:49 AM  
I've never had a problem with having a male ob/gyn, but I completely understand why some women prefer/insist upon a female ob/gyn.
 
2014-07-22 11:52:05 AM  
I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor. It's not as if they knew he was doing this and allowed him to proceed. Other than screening folks for a criminal history before hiring them, what could they have done to prevent this? If the patients didn't know they were being recorded, it's not as if a medical observer is going to know there's a hidden camera either.

I guess the settlement is mainly to avoid bad press from a legal battle?
 
2014-07-22 11:57:58 AM  
camera penis?
 
2014-07-22 11:58:47 AM  
8000 claimants. After the lawyers take their cut, each claimant will receive around $10K. Sometimes it is better to opt out of a class action suit.

insano: I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor.


He was employed by the hospital, so they are liable. Sorry, but that's the law.
 
2014-07-22 11:59:21 AM  
If, and it's a big if, they could identify each of the 8000 girls, that's $23K each (minus the attorney's cut). There is no evidence he ever shared the videos. That's farking crazy. There is simply no way that's reasonable.
 
2014-07-22 11:59:25 AM  
Nicely done, subs...
 
2014-07-22 12:06:10 PM  

JackieRabbit: 8000 claimants. After the lawyers take their cut, each claimant will receive around $10K. Sometimes it is better to opt out of a class action suit.


This. When I first read the title I was surpised by the large amount but after reading the number of patients it works out to roughly 24K a patient. If the lawyers get 1/3 then that would be 16K. The worst part is that the lawyers will make roghly 50 million for what should be an open and shut case.
 
2014-07-22 12:07:04 PM  
"...camera penis..."

HOTY
 
2014-07-22 12:09:31 PM  

NightOwl2255: . That's farking crazy. There is simply no way that's reasonable.


So what would be reasonable in your view? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think 16K is that shocking of a number. 10K? 5k? Something has to be given for the violation...
 
2014-07-22 12:09:54 PM  
unsolicited looking at a vagina trifecta now in play?
 
2014-07-22 12:16:57 PM  

worlddan: JackieRabbit: 8000 claimants. After the lawyers take their cut, each claimant will receive around $10K. Sometimes it is better to opt out of a class action suit.

This. When I first read the title I was surpised by the large amount but after reading the number of patients it works out to roughly 24K a patient. If the lawyers get 1/3 then that would be 16K. The worst part is that the lawyers will make roghly 50 million for what should be an open and shut case.


In class action cases such as these, the team of lawyers usually take 50-60%, which is why some law firms specialize in them. Individual civil suits usually yield about a third. A plaintiff in such a case may be able to get a court to award her a few million in punitive damages, which is better for her, but nowhere near the $80-90M what a law firm could make in a class action suit. A smaller settlement with conditions would be more common. Class action suits are a rip-off, but sometimes necessary. To get 8000 individual law suits on the court having jurisdiction on the docket and adjudicated could take decades.
 
2014-07-22 12:20:31 PM  
For me I would want to have the face in the image/video just looking at the vulva doesn't really do that much for me. I assume he was doing this for some sexual gratification. I don't know maybe videos of me touching the vulva might be gratifying, but I think the nature of the situation would negate that possibility.
 
2014-07-22 12:27:45 PM  

worlddan: NightOwl2255: . That's farking crazy. There is simply no way that's reasonable.

So what would be reasonable in your view? I'm genuinely curious. I don't think 16K is that shocking of a number. 10K? 5k? Something has to be given for the violation...


If a woman's face is shown, $20k. If just the hooha, $2500.
 
2014-07-22 12:28:27 PM  

JackieRabbit: insano: I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor.

He was employed by the hospital, so they are liable.


Just restating the same line, "they are liable" does not explain the whole "why" part.

The law is the law because reasons, doesn't really fly with most people.
 
2014-07-22 12:35:04 PM  

JackieRabbit: 8000 claimants. After the lawyers take their cut, each claimant will receive around $10K. Sometimes it is better to opt out of a class action suit.

insano: I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor.

He was employed by the hospital, so they are liable. Sorry, but that's the law.


So is the hospital system now responsible for all crimes committed by all employees? Or just all crimes perpetrated in the hospital? Or just by doctors? What is this law to which you refer?

The doctor went through a criminal background check, he received HIPAA training, I'm pretty sure his employers made it clear that this was not proper or legal conduct. What more can they do?
 
2014-07-22 12:43:22 PM  

omeganuepsilon: JackieRabbit: insano: I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor.

He was employed by the hospital, so they are liable.

Just restating the same line, "they are liable" does not explain the whole "why" part.

The law is the law because reasons, doesn't really fly with most people.


I understand this, but common law has held this view for centuries. To get an explanation for the why question, you will need to talk to a law professor. Yet there must be sound jurisprudence behind it, since it has survived any number of challenges over the centuries. What will fly with most people is not important; law is not a popularity contest.

Note that JHH is civilly liable, but not criminally so unless they knew about this and took no action. The doctor is both criminally and civilly liable. Just because JHH is shelling out $190M doesn't get him off the hook. His patients may still sue him individually and, in those cases, the JHH settlement would not have standing. In this case, Levy is dead, but his malpractice insurance company and his estate are still liable for claims. So I feel for his heirs.
 
2014-07-22 12:44:43 PM  

JackieRabbit: In class action cases such as these, the team of lawyers usually take 50-60%, which is why some law firms specialize in them. Individual civil suits usually yield about a third. A plaintiff in such a case may be able to get a court to award her a few million in punitive damages, which is better for her, but nowhere near the $80-90M what a law firm could make in a class action suit. A smaller settlement with conditions would be more common. Class action suits are a rip-off, but sometimes necessary. To get 8000 individual law suits on the court having jurisdiction on the docket and adjudicated could take decades.


Not according to the CDCs website from April, 2013.
 
2014-07-22 12:52:43 PM  

JackieRabbit: omeganuepsilon: JackieRabbit: insano: I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor.

He was employed by the hospital, so they are liable.

Just restating the same line, "they are liable" does not explain the whole "why" part.

The law is the law because reasons, doesn't really fly with most people.

I understand this, but common law has held this view for centuries. To get an explanation for the why question, you will need to talk to a law professor. Yet there must be sound jurisprudence behind it, since it has survived any number of challenges over the centuries. What will fly with most people is not important; law is not a popularity contest.

Note that JHH is civilly liable, but not criminally so unless they knew about this and took no action. The doctor is both criminally and civilly liable. Just because JHH is shelling out $190M doesn't get him off the hook. His patients may still sue him individually and, in those cases, the JHH settlement would not have standing. In this case, Levy is dead, but his malpractice insurance company and his estate are still liable for claims. So I feel for his heirs.


It was my understanding that a plaintiff would have to prove that JHH didn't go through reasonable steps to prevent this (e.g. careless hiring practices, lack of background checks) orcontributed to the criminal act within the scope of employment demands (e.g. a company forces a truck driver to work long hours and they fall asleep behind the wheel). I don't think liability is automatic as you suggest.
 
2014-07-22 12:53:17 PM  

insano: The doctor went through a criminal background check, he received HIPAA training, I'm pretty sure his employers made it clear that this was not proper or legal conduct. What more can they do?

Like JackieRabbit mentioned, it depends very much on what the hospital knew and when they knew it. A few articles have mentioned there was no nurse present during the exams (a big no-no), so at least some members of the staff are culpable for not following proper protocol. If this went on for a while & none of them reported it, then his staff bears some responsibility. If the staff knew about it, reported it to the hospital, and then upper management did nothing for a while? Then they are also accountable.

/whole story just turns my stomach
 
2014-07-22 12:54:59 PM  

insano: JackieRabbit: 8000 claimants. After the lawyers take their cut, each claimant will receive around $10K. Sometimes it is better to opt out of a class action suit.

insano: I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor.

He was employed by the hospital, so they are liable. Sorry, but that's the law.

So is the hospital system now responsible for all crimes committed by all employees? Or just all crimes perpetrated in the hospital? Or just by doctors? What is this law to which you refer?

The doctor went through a criminal background check, he received HIPAA training, I'm pretty sure his employers made it clear that this was not proper or legal conduct. What more can they do?


They did not specifically forbid him to record interior lady parts.

Nor was there any specific language in the by-laws about the surreptitious recording, for non-medical purposes, of images of lady parts.

THEY SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER.

It's possible they knew the possibility that this could happen existed and did nothing about it, and are therefore negligent.

Or it's possible they were ignorant of the possibility that this could happen.  In that case, they're incompetent, and therefore liable.

Anyway, these poor women must live with the shame and sense of violation for life.  Since we can't give them justice, give them the next best thing:  $$$, and well-paid legal representation.
 
2014-07-22 12:56:10 PM  

StandsWithAFist: there was no nurse present during the exams


Come on, who doesn't know this one? fark, even the nurses should've gotten wise to this.
 
2014-07-22 01:00:12 PM  

omeganuepsilon: JackieRabbit: insano: I don't understand why the hospital system is liable for the actions of this doctor.

He was employed by the hospital, so they are liable.

Just restating the same line, "they are liable" does not explain the whole "why" part.

The law is the law because reasons, doesn't really fly with most people.


That is the part I still am wondering about. The doctor acting on his own was secretly filming. As soon as a complaint was filed they stopped him from practicing while the investigation happened and they called the cops. Their security even confiscated a few of the cameras and gave them to the :ops. Then the guy offed himself a few days later. Seems to me that they handled it correctly though I dont have more details.

This isnt Penn State where the administration had prior knowledge and complaints about Sandusky and allowed him continued access to the campus and didnt notify authorities. These guys werent trying to sweep it under the rug.

I guess when you look at it from the hospital and insurance companies standpoint it is better to just settle and be done with it. Im pretty sure they acknowledge no wrongdoing in the settlement itself.
 
2014-07-22 01:08:33 PM  

StandsWithAFist: insano: The doctor went through a criminal background check, he received HIPAA training, I'm pretty sure his employers made it clear that this was not proper or legal conduct. What more can they do?
Like JackieRabbit mentioned, it depends very much on what the hospital knew and when they knew it. A few articles have mentioned there was no nurse present during the exams (a big no-no), so at least some members of the staff are culpable for not following proper protocol. If this went on for a while & none of them reported it, then his staff bears some responsibility. If the staff knew about it, reported it to the hospital, and then upper management did nothing for a while? Then they are also accountable.

/whole story just turns my stomach


I am not familiar with the rules for women's physical exams but is it required to have a nurse present?  Even if it was though, how would that have prevented this crime? The cameras were hidden; the patients didn't notice the recording the devices so why would the nurses?
 
2014-07-22 01:16:34 PM  

insano: I am not familiar with the rules for women's physical exams but is it required to have a nurse present?  Even if it was though, how would that have prevented this crime? The cameras were hidden; the patients didn't notice the recording the devices so why would the nurses?


I kind of assume that due to the position of the patient they can't easily see what is going on. The nurse who is handing the doctor things or standing behind him charting would probably notice why he was waving a pen in the area.

Farkettes?
 
2014-07-22 01:21:02 PM  

insano: I am not familiar with the rules for women's physical exams but is it required to have a nurse present?  Even if it was though, how would that have prevented this crime? The cameras were hidden; the patients didn't notice the recording the devices so why would the nurses?

It is absolutely required, both for the patient's and the doctor's safety, to prevent any impropriety (like TFA mentioned) as well as to prevent any "he said/she said" legal tangles if someone alleges impropriety. He was nabbed when a nurse noticed he was constantly wearing an odd-looking pen around his neck (not standard examination equipment).

Without going into TMI details, it's a bit difficult to see exactly what a doctor is doing to one's ladybits while laying on an exam table in that position - hence why most competent doctors will explain "you will feel this", "I'm going to do this now", etc. when they're examining you. No reason at all why the patients should've known they were being recorded.

However, the sheer number of videos this asshat recorded suggests his nursing staff was way off base as they apparently 1) allowed him to preform unnecessary exams while 2) no nursing staff was present. Just a single instance of this should have been enough to set off warning bells that something was not right with this guy.
 
2014-07-22 01:37:12 PM  
If an insurance company, with its legions of lawyers, is willing to pony up $190 mil, there is something more to the story than we are getting. The insurance company does not give a damn about reputation or keeping it out of a court room. All they care about is the dollar amount. I'm guessing there had been complaints about the good doctor and they were ignored and\or covered up.
 
2014-07-22 01:53:15 PM  

StandsWithAFist: insano: The doctor went through a criminal background check, he received HIPAA training, I'm pretty sure his employers made it clear that this was not proper or legal conduct. What more can they do?
Like JackieRabbit mentioned, it depends very much on what the hospital knew and when they knew it. A few articles have mentioned there was no nurse present during the exams (a big no-no), so at least some members of the staff are culpable for not following proper protocol. If this went on for a while & none of them reported it, then his staff bears some responsibility. If the staff knew about it, reported it to the hospital, and then upper management did nothing for a while? Then they are also accountable.

/whole story just turns my stomach


Exactly. Yet we don't know how much JHH management or their clinical staff actually knew. It may just be a case that JHH is a venerable institution and felt that this good-will action was necessary to restore their reputation. It may just as well be that their lawyers told them that they were about to have their asses handed to them and needed to pony up on a lot of money, which would still be better than any other option.
 
2014-07-22 02:28:40 PM  

JackieRabbit: StandsWithAFist: insano: The doctor went through a criminal background check, he received HIPAA training, I'm pretty sure his employers made it clear that this was not proper or legal conduct. What more can they do?
Like JackieRabbit mentioned, it depends very much on what the hospital knew and when they knew it. A few articles have mentioned there was no nurse present during the exams (a big no-no), so at least some members of the staff are culpable for not following proper protocol. If this went on for a while & none of them reported it, then his staff bears some responsibility. If the staff knew about it, reported it to the hospital, and then upper management did nothing for a while? Then they are also accountable.

/whole story just turns my stomach

Exactly. Yet we don't know how much JHH management or their clinical staff actually knew. It may just be a case that JHH is a venerable institution and felt that this good-will action was necessary to restore their reputation. It may just as well be that their lawyers told them that they were about to have their asses handed to them and needed to pony up on a lot of money, which would still be better than any other option.


Some of all of this.

Though, I read the original question of "why" as a more general one.  All too often it is one individual acting of his own accord doing something bad, and then a money grab of the higher organization, because people should be protected from any eventuality because reasons....

Where really can we hold the larger organization to responsibility for something a single individual does?  How much control of any given individual can we really enforce and still be considered a free society?

What if in every job we had 3 supervisors just to make sure we couldn't break the rules?  Would we want that kind of over the shoulder watching of every motion we take?

I'm all for victims getting what they can out of an actual abuser, but taking higher organizations to task because in our dream world no bad things can happen to anyone, ever, is a bit ridiculous.

That's how we get warning labels on Preparation H for "do not take orally".  That's how we get frivolous lawsuits, to include those that reach into scam territory.

Every solution brings with it it's own problems, and none are really all that foolproof, and really, it leads more towards an Idiocracy than anything else a lot of the time.
 
2014-07-22 02:57:57 PM  
This is why I go to female doctors.  I went to one male gyno who after the exam, the nurse left, but he didn't give me time to change back into my clothes (only time I've ever had this happen) and proceeded to sit there talking to me for 20 minutes about my birth control options while I sat there trying to cover myself with a small paper sheet and a paper top (not even a gown) that didn't even cover my breasts fully.  For some reason he had tiny paper stuff instead of the normal paper stuff that covers plenty in most gyno offices.  Talk about awkward.  He kept looking at my boobs.  That was the last time I went to a male doctor.

I'm sure most of them are completely professional, but I prefer my peace of mind.
 
2014-07-22 03:12:04 PM  
Well duh!  Of course a camera penis is not part of standard gynecological exam!  A camera penis is only used in the standard colonoscopy.  That's what my proctologist uses.

What idiot would have believed otherwise?
 
2014-07-22 03:37:24 PM  
This kind of settles the whole "they've seen it all before, they don't care thing".

It's a long road to haul but I can seen people going into these fields because they have certain fetishes.
 
2014-07-22 04:00:50 PM  
FTFA: Because the women could not be identified from the images, all former patients could be considered victims. Anyone treated by Levy has been affected by a feeling of "betrayal" and an invasion of doctor-patient confidentiality, said Jonathan Schochor, the lead attorney for the patients.

"Many of our clients still feel a betrayal and lack of trust and have fallen out of the medical system," Schochor said. "They stopped seeing their doctors, they stopped taking their children to doctors. They refused to see male OB-GYNs, or any OB-GYN.

"Their lives, needless to say, have been severely and negatively impacted," he said.



Umm... WTF? If the patients could not be identified by the images, then how has this "severely and negatively impacted" their lives?
 
2014-07-22 07:30:26 PM  
I gotta say...who the Fark cares about a picture of vulva if their face isn't shown?? How are these women injured, humiliated, etc???
Shiat's ridiculous.
 
2014-07-22 07:40:30 PM  
no shiatty homemade porn is worth that much. i call shenaigans on this whole thing. did she not fill in the release form?
 
2014-07-22 08:22:28 PM  

pumpkineater: I gotta say...who the Fark cares about a picture of vulva if their face isn't shown?? How are these women injured, humiliated, etc???
Shiat's ridiculous.


I was kind of pondering that.  It comes down to "it's uncomfortable to think about, that this one guy who's seen my cooter in person has an image of it as well."  Unless he was distributing them, it's quite literally no different than someone with a good memory.

And if he was distributing it, so what?  It only is humiliating because of some hazy analogue connections in the mind and the way society reflects on sex.  If they hadn't been informed, they'd have never cared.  It is not tatamount to rape or any other kind of assault, and we know there are creepy people out there that will jack it to any given feature(feet, cleavage, etc), or more normal people who will fantasize about any given person that they know if there's any sexual attraction.

Maybe they're offended because it makes it harder to deny that people think about sex and that sometimes they're the object of that thought, which totally ruins their dreams of being seen only as a person unless someone has their explicit permission to view them otherwise?

*shrugs*

But, eh, that leads people to think, that if *you think there's no harm done, that *you also think it's ok for the doc to have done this.  Which is of course mistaken.

It is possible to see an act as "wrong" and yet see that there's no actual harm perpetrated.
 
2014-07-22 08:47:29 PM  
I've had both over the years and thus far I have to say given a choice I'm going with the male gynecologist. In general they've been much more careful with my comfort and explaining whats going on. I figure they've seen thousands of lady bits and mine are pretty much factory standard.
 
2014-07-22 09:11:26 PM  

wichitaleaf: If I were a lady I think I'd go to a women Dr.


Women can be sick too.
 
2014-07-22 09:15:50 PM  

phukktifano: I've had both over the years and thus far I have to say given a choice I'm going with the male gynecologist. In general they've been much more careful with my comfort and explaining whats going on. I figure they've seen thousands of lady bits and mine are pretty much factory standard.


IMO, the chance you get a pervy doctor are about even.  It's relative to the argument that gay men are more likely to be pedophiles, which is utterly ridiculous.  When it goes into creepy/skeevy/abusive, it's not longer just about sexual attraction, but is more reliant on that person being not quite right in the head(in which neither sex has any exclusivity).  If more male doctors are that way, it is only because there are more males in the field.

Any other view is a bit sexist or otherwise bigoted, imo.

However, as a male, I prefer female healthcare workers based on personal experiences.  Over all, the male one's I've seen have almost always been less attentive and caring than a counterpart, and more likely to pay less attention or even not believe I've got symptom X.  Nothing worse than a male proctologist that doesn't care to lube the camera or give a warning, just plops it right in there.

Whether it's because males are less likely to care, or more uncomfortable talking to other males about "intimate" things, or that their "clinical" nature is natural to them because they really are just in it for the money(and they get paid regardless of weather they actually help you or not)....I can't say for sure.  That's just the way my experiences have panned out(and being well traveled I've seen more different staff than a lot of people see).
 
2014-07-23 05:49:31 AM  
blog.lareviewofbooks.org
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report