Skip to content
 
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.

(SacBee)   Judge: The defendant cannot perform surgery during his online court hearing   (sacbee.com) divider line
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2941 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Feb 2021 at 7:55 PM (6 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



53 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-02-27 3:40:29 PM  
Humblebrag?
 
2021-02-27 3:52:20 PM  
Judge: The defendant cannot perform surgury during his online court hearing

Sur would be gury if he did.
 
2021-02-27 5:01:38 PM  
It's possible that he's so well-practiced in his field, that the vagaries of answering basic questions during surgery would not be that much of a distraction. Then again, who knows.
 
2021-02-27 5:29:06 PM  
I'm getting a vibe of "why are you wasting my time with court dates about my speeding tickets?  Can't you see I'm an important and busy person?"

On the other, if given the opportunity to do something like that which I knew was of no risk to the patient, I'd pull that move too just for the novelty of it.
 
2021-02-27 7:58:21 PM  
Well he could, you're just not letting him.
 
2021-02-27 8:06:03 PM  
On the one hand -- douche.
On the other hand -- innocent until proven guilty and he's minimizing the costs involved.  This isn't the shining beacon case to use but people plead guilty and pay fines because they can't afford to miss a day of work or they will get fired.
 
2021-02-27 8:06:31 PM  
I have so many levels of "what the fark" right now.
 
2021-02-27 8:11:18 PM  
Somebody gonna get sued.
 
2021-02-27 8:12:07 PM  
Scalpel.
Clamp.
Suction.
Affidavit.
Not guilty.
Scalpel.
Clamp....
 
2021-02-27 8:13:12 PM  
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.comView Full Size


"A Northern California plastic surgeon"
 
2021-02-27 8:16:31 PM  
Two self important latin-using professionals having a dick measuring contest.
 
2021-02-27 8:21:15 PM  
Did his patient know this was going on? Seems fast track to malpractice.
 
2021-02-27 8:21:33 PM  
The preferential treatment is farking disgusting. Let me try video conferencing in to court while rebuilding a coolant pump. I'd be slapped with contempt charges so fast....
So should this doctor.
 
2021-02-27 8:23:17 PM  
Look, remote court is way more convenient than regular court; but it's not supposed to be THIS convenient!
 
2021-02-27 8:23:44 PM  

Fara Clark: The preferential treatment is farking disgusting. Let me try video conferencing in to court while rebuilding a coolant pump. I'd be slapped with contempt charges so fast....
So should this doctor.


You would not. Stop pretending.
 
2021-02-27 8:33:17 PM  

BumpInTheNight: I'm getting a vibe of "why are you wasting my time with court dates about my speeding tickets?  Can't you see I'm an important and busy person?"

On the other, if given the opportunity to do something like that which I knew was of no risk to the patient, I'd pull that move too just for the novelty of it.


I got the vibe of, "Look how important I am! Don't give me a traffic ticket! I save nose jobs!"
 
2021-02-27 8:33:21 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Look, remote court is way more convenient than regular court; but it's not supposed to be THIS convenient!


I disagree partially.  Lawyers who aren't wearing Georgian drag aren't even real lawyers, just colonial hacks playing at baristry.

The poodle wigs add an undeniable air of impracticality and silliness. The formal full body robes facilitate no-pants relaxation. It keeps things... Discworldy.

Now, even incredibly minor surgery should be an all or nothing affair between surgeon and patient, but Zoom trials should mandate silly filters for a few test trials and compare satisfaction levels to pants-on ones.
 
2021-02-27 8:34:07 PM  
Look, it used to be that you had to take a day off work and go to court. The court didn't give a damn what your day off was and wouldn't lift a finger to let you reschedule for a day you could be there. It was SHOW UP OR GET FARKED.

So, now that they doing virtual court appearances, this guy SHOWS UP to court and they're upset that he's working while he's on the video conference.

What the fark is the problem?
 
2021-02-27 8:34:20 PM  
I'm not shocked it was a plastic surgeon that thought this was okay.
 
2021-02-27 8:36:39 PM  

Fara Clark: The preferential treatment is farking disgusting. Let me try video conferencing in to court while rebuilding a coolant pump. I'd be slapped with contempt charges so fast....
So should this doctor.


No kidding. In the court notices for Zoom hearings they send out here in Michigan, they tell you right up front that you should not be doing anything that would distract you from paying full attention to the court (since where you are attending the Zoom hearing from is considered to be, at that time, an extension of the actual courtroom, and you can be held in contempt for doing anything that the judge thinks is inappropriate if you were in the actual courtroom).
 
2021-02-27 8:38:43 PM  

pxlboy: It's possible that he's so well-practiced in his field, that the vagaries of answering basic questions during surgery would not be that much of a distraction. Then again, who knows.


Surely any patient being operated on deserves the undivided attention of the surgeon in question, which was also the judge's opinion. A distracted surgeon is a recipe for disaster, no matter how technically capable he/she might be. Being able to perform surgery in your sleep isn't a dare.

/He's lucky they just rescheduled instead of slapping him with a contempt of court charge.
 
2021-02-27 8:39:46 PM  

ClavellBCMI: Fara Clark: The preferential treatment is farking disgusting. Let me try video conferencing in to court while rebuilding a coolant pump. I'd be slapped with contempt charges so fast....
So should this doctor.

No kidding. In the court notices for Zoom hearings they send out here in Michigan, they tell you right up front that you should not be doing anything that would distract you from paying full attention to the court (since where you are attending the Zoom hearing from is considered to be, at that time, an extension of the actual courtroom, and you can be held in contempt for doing anything that the judge thinks is inappropriate if you were in the actual courtroom).


This. This is the best comment on this whole thing.
We would not let a massage therapist perform a massage in court in order to not lose the client.
 
2021-02-27 8:40:31 PM  
Good job on the HIPAA violation.
 
2021-02-27 8:41:46 PM  

BumpInTheNight: I'm getting a vibe of "why are you wasting my time with court dates about my speeding tickets?  Can't you see I'm an important and busy person?"

On the other, if given the opportunity to do something like that which I knew was of no risk to the patient, I'd pull that move too just for the novelty of it.


I got the impression he wasn't concerned about the risk to the patient. "Yeah, yeah, no, there's another guy here, totes magotes cool" is not a healthy attitude towards the patient in the OR. If he wasn't necessary, he shouldn't have been in the room to begin with. If he was, he shouldn't have been on the phone.

If anything went wrong, there'd be one hell of a law suit, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for his malpractice insurance to deny his claim. "Oh, you chose to video chat while you were performing surgery, and your distracted condition led to an issue? Fark you, pay it yourself."
 
2021-02-27 8:43:33 PM  

palelizard: BumpInTheNight: I'm getting a vibe of "why are you wasting my time with court dates about my speeding tickets?  Can't you see I'm an important and busy person?"

On the other, if given the opportunity to do something like that which I knew was of no risk to the patient, I'd pull that move too just for the novelty of it.

I got the impression he wasn't concerned about the risk to the patient. "Yeah, yeah, no, there's another guy here, totes magotes cool" is not a healthy attitude towards the patient in the OR. If he wasn't necessary, he shouldn't have been in the room to begin with. If he was, he shouldn't have been on the phone.

If anything went wrong, there'd be one hell of a law suit, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for his malpractice insurance to deny his claim. "Oh, you chose to video chat while you were performing surgery, and your distracted condition led to an issue? Fark you, pay it yourself."


JFC man you just put me in the uncomfortable position of agreeing with an insurance representative
 
2021-02-27 8:44:57 PM  

Excelsior: pxlboy: It's possible that he's so well-practiced in his field, that the vagaries of answering basic questions during surgery would not be that much of a distraction. Then again, who knows.

Surely any patient being operated on deserves the undivided attention of the surgeon in question, which was also the judge's opinion. A distracted surgeon is a recipe for disaster, no matter how technically capable he/she might be. Being able to perform surgery in your sleep isn't a dare.

/He's lucky they just rescheduled instead of slapping him with a contempt of court charge.


That's fair.
 
2021-02-27 8:47:02 PM  

pxlboy: It's possible that he's so well-practiced in his field, that the vagaries of answering basic questions during surgery would not be that much of a distraction. Then again, who knows.


Let's put it this way. Would you be ok with the situation if you were the patient?

They need to look into his license.
 
2021-02-27 8:49:12 PM  
I've met a few surgeons who might actually do something like that. This dude needs to get a sternly worded letter from the medical board. 🙄
 
2021-02-27 8:49:38 PM  

leeksfromchichis: [encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com image 320x240]

"A Northern California plastic surgeon"


Groovy!
 
2021-02-27 8:51:58 PM  

Excelsior: Surely any patient being operated on deserves the undivided attention of the surgeon in question, which was also the judge's opinion.


You might be shocked at what sometimes goes on while the patient is unaware.
 
2021-02-27 8:52:05 PM  

waxbeans: ClavellBCMI: Fara Clark: The preferential treatment is farking disgusting. Let me try video conferencing in to court while rebuilding a coolant pump. I'd be slapped with contempt charges so fast....
So should this doctor.

No kidding. In the court notices for Zoom hearings they send out here in Michigan, they tell you right up front that you should not be doing anything that would distract you from paying full attention to the court (since where you are attending the Zoom hearing from is considered to be, at that time, an extension of the actual courtroom, and you can be held in contempt for doing anything that the judge thinks is inappropriate if you were in the actual courtroom).

This. This is the best comment on this whole thing.
We would not let a massage therapist perform a massage in court in order to not lose the client.


And it is obvious the doctor knew well in advance exactly when the hearing was going to be held, and the doctor still insisted on *not* rescheduling the elective surgery on the patient to a time *after* the hearing.
 
2021-02-27 8:58:34 PM  

ClavellBCMI: And it is obvious the doctor knew well in advance exactly when the hearing was going to be held, and the doctor still insisted on *not* rescheduling the elective surgery on the patient to a time *after* the hearing.


Are you saying, if the doctor had a 1pm court time, that he was strictly forbidden to schedule a 2 hr surgery at 9am, just because sometimes unexpected things happen and it might go past 1pm?

/ not saying that was the actual scenario
// but it might have been
/// why not?
 
2021-02-27 9:01:02 PM  

palelizard: BumpInTheNight: I'm getting a vibe of "why are you wasting my time with court dates about my speeding tickets?  Can't you see I'm an important and busy person?"

On the other, if given the opportunity to do something like that which I knew was of no risk to the patient, I'd pull that move too just for the novelty of it.

I got the impression he wasn't concerned about the risk to the patient. "Yeah, yeah, no, there's another guy here, totes magotes cool" is not a healthy attitude towards the patient in the OR. If he wasn't necessary, he shouldn't have been in the room to begin with. If he was, he shouldn't have been on the phone.

If anything went wrong, there'd be one hell of a law suit, and it wouldn't be unreasonable for his malpractice insurance to deny his claim. "Oh, you chose to video chat while you were performing surgery, and your distracted condition led to an issue? Fark you, pay it yourself."


But denying the claim will probably screw the guy bring the suit as much or more than the doctor, and it's malpractice insurance it's kinda there for when a doctor does something dumb. It would be like a car insurance denying coverage because someone was driving drunk.
 
2021-02-27 9:02:33 PM  
Liability coverage denying a claim because of drunk driving, comprehensive or collision, absolutely
 
2021-02-27 9:12:28 PM  
Why couldn't the surgeon ask for some kind of deferrment before?
 
2021-02-27 9:15:39 PM  

olorin604: But denying the claim will probably screw the guy bring the suit as much or more than the doctor, and it's malpractice insurance it's kinda there for when a doctor does something dumb. It would be like a car insurance denying coverage because someone was driving drunk.


I might be wrong, but I thought that was actually a thing in some cases. It certainly was the last time I rented a car and got their insurance, there was definitely a clause I initialed that said if you were driving drunk and caused an accident, they weren't going to cover it.

Life insurance doesn't pay out if you kill yourself. There's a difference between doing something dumb and being actively negligent. My surgeon nicks me because he was out drinking last night and needs to eat a banana and rehydrate, dumb. My surgeon nicks me because he chose to Zoom traffic court while I was open on the table, actively negligent.

You aren't wrong about it screwing the guy on the table though.
 
2021-02-27 9:22:39 PM  

olorin604: It would be like a car insurance denying coverage because someone was driving drunk.


Car insurance used to do this. It used to be a standard thing in every policy. It was filed under intentional negligence, I.E., you purposely caused the accident with your actions.
 
2021-02-27 9:26:08 PM  
I wonder what the liability is for the judge if something goes wrong during the surgery?

That's just an all around stupid move.
 
2021-02-27 9:32:04 PM  

BumpInTheNight: I'm getting a vibe of "why are you wasting my time with court dates about my speeding tickets?"


For basic traffic infractions I don't know of a single court (but correct me if I'm wrong) that requires you to make a court appearance. You can check a box for a guilty plea on a ticket and mail it in. There is no need to appear unless you're pleading not guilty and want to set a trial date, though there might also be court appearances necessary if you're doing something like setting up traffic safety school (with a guilty plea) or court supervision (with an admission of guilt, but it doesn't get entered as a plea or conviction).
 
2021-02-27 9:36:15 PM  

NM Volunteer: Good job on the HIPAA violation.


Only if the patient can be identified.

Nothing prevents your doctor from disclosing any of your medical information as long as it is done in such a way that it cannot be linked to you.
 
2021-02-27 9:38:33 PM  

ClavellBCMI: since where you are attending the Zoom hearing from is considered to be, at that time, an extension of the actual courtroom


Now that's an incredible joke.
 
2021-02-27 9:54:32 PM  

palelizard: olorin604: But denying the claim will probably screw the guy bring the suit as much or more than the doctor, and it's malpractice insurance it's kinda there for when a doctor does something dumb. It would be like a car insurance denying coverage because someone was driving drunk.

I might be wrong, but I thought that was actually a thing in some cases. It certainly was the last time I rented a car and got their insurance, there was definitely a clause I initialed that said if you were driving drunk and caused an accident, they weren't going to cover it.

Life insurance doesn't pay out if you kill yourself. There's a difference between doing something dumb and being actively negligent. My surgeon nicks me because he was out drinking last night and needs to eat a banana and rehydrate, dumb. My surgeon nicks me because he chose to Zoom traffic court while I was open on the table, actively negligent.

You aren't wrong about it screwing the guy on the table though.


Yah I should have specified liability. I think in missouri it's something like 250k minimum coverage that is just for damages you cause because of your negligence. Comprehensive or collision I could absolutely see not paying out.
 
2021-02-27 10:14:44 PM  

NM Volunteer: Good job on the HIPAA violation.


Thank you for writing 'hipaa' not 'hippa'.

I'm not sure this is a violation as long as the patient wasn't identified or identifiable.

But mostly thank you for writing 'hipaa'.

/doctors and surgeons routinely use depersonalized images and reports for case studies, journals, sharing internally and externally without patient or family permission - and its not required.
// they also talk about you in the elevators.
/// sometimes in glowing terms.  😁
 
2021-02-27 10:15:10 PM  

Kooj: Excelsior: Surely any patient being operated on deserves the undivided attention of the surgeon in question, which was also the judge's opinion.

You might be shocked at what sometimes goes on while the patient is unaware.


Of course, but that doesn't mean a surgeons should never be called out on their callous behavior.

The judge wanted no part in enabling his shenanigans, and rightfully so.
 
2021-02-27 10:26:00 PM  
At least it wasn't a proctologist.
 
2021-02-27 10:37:29 PM  

Xetal: At least it wasn't a proctologist.


Or an obstetrician
 
2021-02-27 10:41:25 PM  

olorin604: I think in missouri it's something like 250k minimum coverage that is just for damages you cause because of your negligence.


That sounds shockingly high for liability insurance in a shiathole red state.

I live in Illinois which is often considered to be a progressive state and our minimum liability for car insurance is $25,000 bodily injury per person per accident, $50,000 bodily injury for all persons per accident, and $20,000 property damage per accident. These are numbers that probably were set a long time ago and never once updated for inflation. One accident and you can easily surpass the individual or total limit for bodily injury. Hit one new Toyota Camry that is totaled and you're past the $20,000 property damage limit.
 
2021-02-27 11:03:35 PM  

mrmopar5287: olorin604: I think in missouri it's something like 250k minimum coverage that is just for damages you cause because of your negligence.

That sounds shockingly high for liability insurance in a shiathole red state.

I live in Illinois which is often considered to be a progressive state and our minimum liability for car insurance is $25,000 bodily injury per person per accident, $50,000 bodily injury for all persons per accident, and $20,000 property damage per accident. These are numbers that probably were set a long time ago and never once updated for inflation. One accident and you can easily surpass the individual or total limit for bodily injury. Hit one new Toyota Camry that is totaled and you're past the $20,000 property damage limit.


Yah, that might be the amount for secured assets you have to prove you have access in order to self insure. Or I added a bonus zero. Or I just made up a number.

Yup just made up a number. Otoh I have apparently have pretty decent insurance.
 
2021-02-27 11:12:01 PM  

olorin604: Yah, that might be the amount for secured assets you have to prove you have access in order to self insure.


Self-insurance is a $70,000 bond in Illinois.
 
2021-02-27 11:28:54 PM  

mrmopar5287: olorin604: Yah, that might be the amount for secured assets you have to prove you have access in order to self insure.

Self-insurance is a $70,000 bond in Illinois.


I've already admitted to just making numbers up, please stop bullying me.

/To save someone else the trouble
"welcome to fark"

Anyway point in the original post wasn't the amount, it was that not paying out liability is hopefully alot harder than not paying out damage claims for the actual insured person. Mostly because I basically carry that insurance to protect myself from me being a idiot. And because it's legally mandated.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  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.