07272017Headline:

Minneapolis, Minnesota

HomeMinnesotaMinneapolis

Email Mike Bryant Mike Bryant on LinkedIn Mike Bryant on Twitter Mike Bryant on Facebook Mike Bryant on Avvo
Mike Bryant
Mike Bryant
Attorney • (800) 770-7008

Texas Damage Caps: Horrific Death of a Baby

12 comments

We see and hear about all sorts of things in personal injury cases.  Sometimes they are very sad or tragic.   Medical malpractice will have its extra share of horrible injuries, but  recently I read a tragic report as from  Catholic Online :

Coats alleges that Rachel asked Dr. Backardjiev to perform a C-section due to the baby’s size, but she said that he responded, “No, you don’t want a C-section. You’ll have a scar.” Later on, 18 hours into labor, she says that her daughter barely had enough energy to push.

“He took the small forceps to try to pull the baby out. He kept going and even put his foot up on the bed trying to pull,” Coats alleges.

“He was turning and twisting and she would never come out. He put the forceps one way and the other. When he touched the top and side of the skull, we heard a pop, like clay cracking in pottery and heard her skull crush.”

The crushing of a baby’s skull in the presence of her parents.  My heart goes out to them just thinking about it.

Of interest, according to the story, the family is working to pass “The Olivia Law,” which would ban the use of forceps during birth. That is something worth looking at.

Beyond that, because it happened in Texas,  any legal remedies are capped  because the Texas legislature thought it was best to put an upper limit on cases  no matter the damages.  So this incident, like any other medical malpractice case in Texas, doesn’t go to the jury to decide what the total damages are.  No ,  the jury makes a decision and then the court reduces it,  if it is above the cap.

It is important to point out how tort reformers change when they are injured. How personal experience shows what really happens. Hopefully, it will be an eye opening experience for the closed minded.

Here are other posts about the Texas system:

Texas Tort Reform Harms the Public, Beth Janicek | August 05, 2011 1:21 PM

FALSE: Texas Gained 21,000 Doctors Because of Tort Reform, Mike Ferrara | August 26, 2011 2:32 PM

Exposing the Perils of Texas Tort Reform, Mark Bello | August 11, 2011 4:06 PM

Rick Perry: Tort Reform Hypocrite,Brett Emison | December 28, 2011 9:32 AM

More Tort Reform Baloney Out of Texas, Mark Bello | September 23, 2010 5:45 PM

Texas Tort Reform is STILL NOT a Model for Nationwide Health Care Reform, Mike Ferrara | September 09, 2009 10:17 PM

Straight Talk on Tort Reform from Texas, Bret Hanna | November 23, 2009 11:20 PM

Texas medical injuries mount as malpractice laws protect negligent doctors and hospitals, Wayne Parsons | August 13, 2011 2:50 PM

Justice In Texas Points Out The Injustice Of The Law, Mike Bryant | July 28, 2009 9:50 AM

Texas Malpractice News: It’s All Bunk, Mike Bryant | July 11, 2012 9:20 AM

A Texas Tragedy, Mike Bryant |

Texas “Tort Reform” Helped Doctors But Not Other Texans, Andrew Cochran |

The Effects of Tort Reform in Texas, Mark Bello |

No Healthcare Savings in Texas Tort Reform: The Proof is in the Study, Mark Bello |

Is Texas Protecting Dangerous Doctors?, Mark Bello |

Tort Reform: A Failed Experiment, Mark Bello |

Texas medical injuries mount as malpractice laws protect negligent doctors and hospitals., Wayne Parsons |

Does Texas medical malpractice “reform” attract bad doctors?, Wayne Parsons |

 

 

12 Comments

Have an opinion about this post? Please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

  1. jc says:
    up arrow

    There he goes again, waving the bloody rag on a very very rare incident so that Mike Bryant can castigate the Texas Tort Reform law, the best in the nation! Yes, this is a terrible incident and the doctor is definitely at fault. Why were not punitive damages in play?
    What Mike Bryant does not want to talk about is the 85% of medical malpractice cases that go to trial and are won by the defendant doctor. I do not know how in the world plaintiff attorneys manage to lose 85% of their cases, but they do. The fact of the matter is that we have a very corrupt medical malpractice system in this country. Plaintiff attorneys need only pass the bar to file a malpractice case, yet these cases are the most difficult to file and win! This is the equivalent of an intern finishing his internship and doing brain surgery the next day! As a doctor, I have been the victim of frivolous litigation which takes years to litigate and eventually win. I have no legal recourse against the stupid plaintiff attorney who filed the frivolous malpractice suit. So go for it Texas! I am working in Ohio and hope we can make similar reforms here.

  2. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Best in the nation? Wow, let’s see people from around the world get sick and they go to Mayo, John Hopkins, …… not Texas. Minnesota land of low premiums, low number of claims, and excellent health care. Have another one Dr Cox.

    The rest of the comment is your usual garbage without the answer I continue to ask. You tell the truth to the family yet?

  3. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike, as an illustration of how corrupt our medical legal system is, I would like to offer the following case: A patient went into the radiotherapist x with cancer and was treated at radiotherapy center y in Cincinnatti, Ohio. Radiotherapist x overtreated the area and a kidney was erroneously included in the treatment site. The patient lost the kidney, thru obvious medical malpractice. A plaintiff attorney took the case and sued radiation center y and radiotherapist B. After discovery , it was determined that the plaintiff attorney sued the wrong radiotherapist. Unfortunately the statute of limitations had expired. So the defense attorney filed a motion for summary judgement to drop radiotherapist B and radiotherapy center y from the malpractice suit. Of course the plaintiff attorney opposed the motion because he did not want to admit to his client that he had sued the wrong doctor and now the statute of limitations had run out. So the motion went to the court of common pleas. Since the judge on the case does not like doctors, he has let the motion for summary judgement sit there in his court for 5 years! If the judge issues a ruling against the radiotherapist B the case gets appealed and reversed. If the judge issues a ruling granting Summary Judgement for the radiotherapist B the case is over and his plaintiff attorney buddy could get sued for legal malpractice. So the motion for summary judgement just sits there forever and ever and ever. This is the system that Mike Bryant favors. I think we can do better.

  4. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    That whole story seems contrary to your usual point. Who knows what happened, the past tells us that you may not be presenting all of the details. Like what you didn’t tell the family.

    As to what I favor, you won’t find a thing that I have written or anyone here has written that is in line with your fairy tail.

    Dr Cox. You continue to make things up. May be have another.

  5. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike, I love your references for this article. All 18 of them are authored by plaintiff attorneys from The Legal Examiner. That is like quoting Pravda on the perils of capitalism! Sure plaintiff attorneys dislike Texas Tort reform- – -it cuts into their income!

  6. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Texas does nothing to my income or most of the other writers. It is hurting the consumer and stealing for the insurance companies. It is a horrible example because of the stories like I have presented here. Even you see punitive actions here. Caps only do harm those that lose the most.

  7. jc says:
    up arrow

    Greedy, greedy, greedy = plaintiff attorneys! How many yachts can they have?

  8. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Dr Cox the mean troll that shakes his fist at the consumer.

    It was protecting your assets that kept you from telling the truth to that family wasn’t it?

  9. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike–I give you accurate assessments of ongoing cases about our corrupt medical legal system. Your response is always- – -you made it up! When will you acknowledge the facts? Judges are not doctors! Judges throw up their hands when a fraudulent expert witness spouts gibberise during the deposition and trial. Doctors and medical courts can see thru this and would disallow fraudulent testimony. There would be fewer frivolous malpractice suits. You disagree, because that would impact your income.

  10. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    I can see how you read it as “you made it up”, and that may be because 1) maybe you did 2) Like that case you cited about a year ago the facts were all off 3) as history tells us you tend to post two types of comments. The mean lawyers are all the worst or manipulated numbers and talking points.

    As I pointed out I was a little surprised that you actually acknowledged that a doctor could have done something wrong (maybe that is a first step program for you to finally tell that family the truth)

    As to the actual comment. Stricter rules on fraudulent testimony wouldn’t affect me at all. How would it affect the consultant work Dr Cox?

  11. jc says:
    up arrow

    Mike, medical malpractice cases do not move forward without a “medical expert” testifying for the plaintiff. The problem is that most of those “medical experts” are frauds. That is why, at trial, plaintiff attorneys lose 85% of the time because the defense attorney asks some pertinent questions and the fraudster’s testimony blows up! I have come to the realization that plaintiff attorneys and judges are incapable of assessing medical testimony. That is why I support medical courts. Independent medical doctors could assess the facts and quickly rule for the plaintiff or defendant doc in months instead of years to decades for our current system.

  12. Mike Bryant says:
    up arrow

    Your rant while being your usual really has nothing to do with this post. Although even a slanted board would give more than the caps.

    Also a board isn’t needed here in Minnesota. Low premiums, low number of claims and excellent medical care.