From N&O 7/19/1998 "Edwards' success is campaign issue"
...But lawyers who have faced Edwards in the courtroom say he is a master of playing on the heartstrings of jurors who have a natural sympathy for brain-damaged babies or for people who have been paralyzed. And they argue that Edwards, more than any other personal injury lawyer in North Carolina, is responsible for changing the legal climate, where huge verdicts are now acceptable.
The cost for some caught in Edwards lawsuits is more than monetary.
That was the case of Dr. Brian Sherrington, a Southern Pines pediatrician, who was sued along with an obstetrician and Moore County Regional Hospital when a baby was born prematurely with severe respiratory problems and with brain damage.
Sherrington was not involved in the baby's delivery. But after the baby was born, he was called by a nurse for a brief telephone consultation when he was the only doctor the hospital could reach. He told the hospital to get a chest X-ray.
Sherrington says three years of "agony" elapsed from the time he was sued to when the suit against him was dropped in 1992. (A settlement was reached between the parents of the child and the obstetrician.)
"To say it had an impact on my life and career is an understatement," says Sherrington, who has practiced for 22 years. "It made me more defensive. I'm second-guessing myself more often. I am second-guessing patients. Are they really telling me everything? Are they holding back anything? Those sorts of things never used to float around my mind."
One result of the suit is that Sherrington stopped practicing neonatology, the branch of pediatrics that deals with the care of sick newborns. He still practices pediatrics.
"I was depressed," Sherrington says. "I even thought about leaving medicine, leaving the area. It was really devastating. I just kept feeling guilty about the whole thing. I felt I had made a mistake, despite evidence to the contrary...."
Dr. Sherrington is a good person and a good doctor. He was my pediatrician when I was a child and I am happy he is now my child's. Sorry, but he did not deserve what John Edwards did to him. That Dr. Sherrington dropped out of neonatology is not only a loss to the community, it is symptomatic of what happens to good doctors at the hands of trial lawyers who claim they have done something "wrong."
Comments
wrong.
Here's why. My son went to the NICU when he was born and was treated by a neonatologist. He was a great doctor and a friend of mine. I think neonatologists have one of the most emotional and satisfying jobs on the planet.
My son's pediatrician was one of the most senior peds persons at Duke. He was a wonder doctor who treated my son and about a million other kids. Who knows how many kids he helped over the years. But, you know what? He screwed up. Badly. It didn't lead to anyone dying, but that does not change the fact that he screwed up. Would I sue him over it? No, because it wasn't a "life or death" or long-term harm type of issue. Still, great guy, all of our friends used him, they still do, but he screwed up.
Our legal system might be messed up, but as long as it allows people to be held accountable for their mistakes, they will be. Your pediatrician might be a great guy, but that doesn't mean he didn't screw up, or might have screwed up.
I'll bet the "friends" of that pool company that ripped the guts out of that poor little girl said they didn't do anything wrong either. I'll bet the friends of the people who allowed Vioxx onto the market, even though they knew there was a heart risk, think they didn't do anything wrong either. No one wants to think their friends are the bad guys, and it looks like your friend wasn't the bad guy, but sometimes malpractice happens.
I think we need to reform the system where "chance" is taken out of the equation for liability, but where "malpractice" is not. Perhaps we all need to remember what malpractice means...
Some children will die in childbirth, that is just life, always has been, always will. But, a child dying that shouldn't have through a dereliction of duty is malpractice. There is a difference between bad luck and malpractice, and we allow the courts to decide which has occured.
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
This doctor's only "mistake"
This doctor's only "mistake" was answering the telephone. That got him sucked into a lawsuit against another doctor and hospital actually present. I don't know anything about the case other than what was printed in the article, but if a good doctor gets drug around for years for the crime of answering the phone and giving benign and obvious direction to the nurse, then there is something wrong with the system.
I've been around enough lawsuits to know that plaintiff lawyers throw a wide net and accuse anyone remotely involved with doing everything wrong. While a wrong may have been done in this case to the plaintiff, certainly a wrong was also done to a defendant whose only mistake was answering the phone.
SPLiB
I have a question of you, if you don't mind. In your post, you said "I've been around enough lawsuits to know that plaintiff lawyers throw a wide net and accuse anyone remotely involved with doing everything wrong." I don't quite understand what you mean by that. Are you an attorney or paralegal? or are you in the medical or insurance field? I would just like to understand what you meant.
None of the above
I'm not in law or medicine.
I've seen a fair number of lawsuits. I've been sued before. I've been part of organizations that have been sued. So, I have known the real facts and have read what the plaintiff's lawyer says.
In general, even if there is merit buried somewhere in the case, the complaint typically claims vast conspiracies, incompetence, and malice on the part of everyone remotely involved aside from the plaintiff. They have this thing they say. "upon information and belief." It basically gives them free reign to pretty much accuse anyone of whatever they want. As I understand, they are supposed to believe it is true, but I've seen so much absurdity from so many lawyers who I know knew better, I don't think anyone ever calls them on it.
In this case, the poor doctor answered the phone, spoke briefly with the nurse, and gave simple, sound advice. For that, he went through the agony of years of litigation because someone else apprently screwed up. As Edwards has no record of frivolous lawsuits, I'm not arguing against the main complaint (I don't know the details anyway). I just know he did the normal lawyerly thing and drug anyone remotely involved into the "real" lawsuit. That action hurt someone- someone more important to me than John Edwards.
My pediatrician
just did the normal doctorly thing and messed up. That hurt someone- someone more important to me than any doctor. So, I'm against all doctors, I won't vote for a doctor, in fact, I now think Howard Dean should step down. He's a doctor. If the system is broken, then I am going to be angry at all those who work within the system and not the system itself.
In fact, I think doctors are to blame for the 48 million uninsured in this country, so I blame your friend for causing the uninsured problem in this country. He works within the system that has allowed all of these people to be uninsured and uncared for. He should step outside the system and work for free, or pay for the insurance of those without. He should be held accountable for working within a broken system.
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Oh Jeez...
n/m
your failed logic come home to roost my libertarian friend.
the
failed to show up at the end of the above comment, forgot to leave spaces.
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
But I found out this weekend I was a Liberal
Thanks to Southern Dem :-)
Always happy to help
:)
Oh...and your description of the "wide net" is very accurate. Not a lawyer, but grew up with a pretty successful defense lawyer and boy have I heard some stories.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
"poor doctor"
LOL! He sounds very well off to me. A practicing, succesful pediatrician who was merely inconvieneced for issuing poor medical advice. Perhaps he should have taken his oath a bit more seriously and given that case the time it deserved.
The fact is, that doctor gave medical advice and was practicing in his professional capacity as a licensed physician. Anytime a doctor practices, whether it be on the computer, over the phone or in person, they should be held accountable.
Sorry, but your cry to allow doctors to practice medicine without any standards of accountablitiy is reckless and does not warrant any support from me nor should it from anyone who believes in democracy.
Whoa there. Where in all
Whoa there. Where in all this did I suggest doctors have no accountability? I'm feeling a random movie quote coming on here:
You seemed to imply it, strongly
BTW, I had trouble finding a link to the article you sourced as being printed in the N&O. It's pretty much standard protocol to provide a link to the full article with the name of the author of the article. Was this published as a LTTE to the editor written by a reader or what?
Thank you for your response.
You sound like a reasonable person who has simply been 'nipped' by legal action and I have no way of knowing the validity of that action, but one can't retaliate against other cases to make a point that they feel their case wasn't handled properly. There are many others who don't sue. I was one of those who chose not to sue although I experienced some pretty extreme mishandling of a medical condition. It was another case of having an emotional family relationship with the physician but I still should have. Fortunately, my child didn't suffer the physical effects that the child in this discussion did, but I suffered many. I feel the parents had one responsibility in that situation and it was to their child. I'm sure if you have children, that you wouldn't let your child go without a wheel chair, or proper medical care just because you had that 'warm fuzzy' feeling about the physicial. That certainly wouldn't be right and would be downright negligent on the part of the parent. Parents are given the responsibility of making sure that their child has everything they can provide and that includes medically even if someone has to pay.
I'm sorry you have such strong beliefs on this issue as I think you are probably a fine person who has an extreme loyalty to this physician. I'm sure if it were another physician you would be able to see the difference. Also, regardless of your feelings on this issue, if you allow this to cause you to be blind sighted about John Edwards, you are going to be missing an opportunity to meet a wonderful and caring human being. That much I do know. Perhaps you can work past that, otherwise, why would you be on this forum talking with us. But, if you don't, I hope you find a candidate you feel is 'perfect' because it is for sure that the person in the White House today has more flaws than anyone ever there before. Furthermore, I don't see anyone in the Republican camp that is even remotely as well equipped to lead our great country as is John Edwards. Good luck to you. Hope you get your inner conflicts resolved.
The jury decided he did make a mistake
Juries are composed of thinking citizens who are performing their civic duty. They decided.
Obviously, this doctor was inconvienenced by a trial but that is the risk and responsibility he took on when he became a licensed doctor. He was judged by his peers and they determined he made a mistake.
Now, he has gone on to practice medicine, a lucrative profession, I might add. Sorry, I don't pity him. He was held accountable, as he should have been.
Read the article. The case
Read the article. The case was settled by the primary defendants. He was not "held accountable" as he did nothing wrong. That's the problem. He did nothing wrong but was still dragged into this mess by the litigator's wide net.
So, his lawyer settled for him
His lawyer settled for him because he knew it would be a better deal than taking it to trial.
Do you have a link for that article? TIA!
I think...
that the primary physician was held accountable, but not the neonatologist that provided a phone consult.
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Phone consult=practicing medicine
It matters not whether they issue advice/consult over the phone, via email or in person.
We all have liablities and risks as professionals. If I'm neglectful and allow a gas leak in one of my buildings and one of my tenants dies from it, it's irrelevant if I failed to properly take care of it over the phone, via email or in person. Neglect is neglect.
We must all be held to standards of accountability. We are profitting off of our clients and we owe it to society in general, those we are making money off of, to act responsibly and in accordance with the law.
I agree,
all I'm saying is that in this case the phone consult was not malpractice and was not treated as such, that is the diarists point - misguided as the remainder of his thinking might be.
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
A LINK to the source would help
T'would be nice to have a link to the article and be able to reference it as well as get more info on it rather than have to rely solely on the small, selected clip in the main entry.
I see your point, tho!
I've found mention of the article, but not the article itself.
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
It's in the archives
If you subscribe to the N&O (yes I know some here are sworn against THAT,) you have free access to the online archives. You just need your account number. I read about the article, probably from the same search engine Robert P found it on, and went to the N&O for the full article.
Just so you know, I snipped entire relevant (to this case) portion of the article. The rest of it is about his law history, successful cases, etc. and how Faircloth is(was) trying to use his profession against him. Except what I posted, most would probably consider it a pretty good biography of his legal career and how he is not "one of those slimy ambulance chasers." It talks about how he is so good he gets to pick only the best, most meritorious cases and how he helps out the little guy and scares off the opposition.
Who was the article written by?
And what is the actual date of publication? Was it a LTTE to the editor, what section?
More info would be appreciated rather than just your interpretation. TIA!
Raad the OP
Most of the info is there!
Author: ROB CHRISTENSEN; STAFF WRITER
Edition: Final
Section: News
Page: A1
Index Terms:
Elections '98
election
campaign
John Edwards
judicial
NC
PROFILE
I can't link to a subscriber-only link. If you ahve access, just search the doctor's last name- Sherrington. It's the only result.
The author was not listed in the OP
And you have taken one small snip, out of context, from the article. So, now we have the author, who happens to be someone who generally writes pretty fair articles about Senator Edwards.
I don't think I need to buy that article but take the OP for what is worth, a select snip that is a typical RW smear of John Edwards, not based on any real fact.
Whatever
I am not a "right-winger." I am not sure what I am, but I know I am not a right-winger.
I would have posted more, but we're not supposed to post the whole article and the ONLY place I could find the whole thing was on a site I happen to pay for through my newspaper subscription.
I don't know if what I said was a smear, especially if it is the truth. IMHO, at least, Edwards like other lawyers casts a wide net in his lawsuits and in at least one case it led to hurting a good person who did nothing wrong. And no, the doctor is not my friend any more than most people are "friends" with their doctor.
Yes, it is a rightwing smear
It has been used widely against Senator Edwards by rightwingers.
I did not call you a rightwinger but called the smear, rightwing, which it clearly is.
I would suggest you take the time to learn more about the entire issue and consider all of the facts, rather than base your vote on one narrow anecdotal situation: your personal feelings about one doctor.
Knowledge is power.
BTW, I now have the full article and here is another snip from it:
So, you see, this angle was concocted by Republicans whose goal was to trash a Democrat. They use fear and misinformation to manipulate the voters.
Casting aspersions
Casting a wide net is simply a derogatory euphemism for due-diligence.
I suppose there should have been some good-old-boy free pass for a class of people beyond reproach. Nobody is above the law.
Should a police officer be disparaged for having the temerity to question anybody connected with a crime? Should an attorney pull punches becuse the "right kind" of person was on the stand?
Let the judge and jury decide. An attorney that failed to turn over every rock deserves contempt.
ASpersions...
Should a police office be disparaged for having the temerity to ARREST anybody connected with a crime? Yes. How about the DA CHARGING everyone near (or on the phone with) the scene? Yes.
If "my" doctor were really involved/at fault in Edward's mind, why was the suit against him dropped when the doctor and hospital actually involved finally settled? If it was worth putting him through all that and if he did something wrong in their minds, why not continue? If it is worth fighting for, why not see it through? I think that speaks to the issue more than anything else.
Arrested vs. being investigated
Your doctor's role was looked at closely, as it should have been which is akin to being investigated, not arrested. He was not taken to jail, he did not have to go to trial.
As Gregflynn pointed out, it's called, "due diligence."
Initiating a suit is a first
Initiating a suit is a first step to starting discovery, depositions etc, and getting an insurance claim going so that a defendant's legal bills can be covered. It's a part of doing business, odious but necessary. It is not necessarily evil or vindictive though it is intimidating.
One of my past employers asked a good client to sue in order to initiate an insurance claim. They were all on good terms.
Doctors do have to second-guess patients. Patient do not always tell everything unless it is drawn out, especially on the phone. Any doctor on-call is a target for drug-addicts trying to weazel another prescription. Patients forget to tell about other medications and supplements they are taking, symptoms they have experienced or other treatment they are receiving. Any doctor on-call needs to be on-guard and one who isn't has to learn the hard way.
It is really hard standing in your own kitchen, with a child clamoring for attention and a pot about to boil over, to put yourself in a professional frame of mind and to be wary of all the pitfalls of a phone consultation. He didn't deserve to be sued but that is the system that exists.
The doctor has a beef with the hospital for putting him in that position, yet, having assumed that position of responsibility by answering the phone as an on-call doctor it appears that the degree of responsibility could not be determined without suing all parties. Somebody dropped the ball. This doctor was left holding it. He was eventually relieved of it, at considerable personal cost. Blaming a tenacious advocate is easy but the hospital administration that did not provide for continuity of care, putting the child at risk and, the nurse and the doctor in difficult circumstances should be answerable for its lapses.
The doctor was a victim of the hospital administration. It seems the suit was dropped when the hospital finally accepted responsibility. It should not have been necessary to sue him but apparently it was. Neither patients nor nurses nor doctors win in the current system of healthcare delivery. That is why it is so important to reform it, making healthcare accessible, and not dependant on a lone doctor fielding a hail-mary pass as a last resort.
They knew after depositions.
Think about it. They played the waiting game. The attorneys are just as responsible as the hospital for what this doctor had to endure and it isn't acceptable. Ruining one life in the pursuit of justice for another isn't acceptable. I know you aren't arguing that it is, but this seemed to be the most natural place to say that.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
I agree
n/t
His life was ruined?
I must have misunderstood but thought the OP said he is a practicing pediatrician. How was his life ruined?
the rub
What is your REAL rub? Obviously it isn't your much too feeble claim that is is because of your loyalty to a family doctor. That is a gimmick and it dosn't hold water. Obviously you have another motive whether it be to trash the Senator because you love trashing people, or something else. People simply don't have that sort of loyalty for a 'family doctor'. Give me a break. Perhaps you are a neocon troll with a mission of posting inaccuracies with the hope of getting attention. I would think trashing an attorney could be risky business, especially a successful attorney.
Duty and responsibility.
He was on call, or at least available for consult, the fact that it was over the phone is of no consequence. I agree that the net is throw wide, but let's imagine a slightly different scenario.
Imagine that a similar call has been made in the same type of case 100 times and that 99 of those times the doctor said "Quick, give him a shot of X to help lower the swelling. That way, at least the child won't end up with brain damage." Now, your friend says, "Give him an X-ray, he probably has transient tachypnea. I'm off to play golf."
What your friend did was not legally wrong, but it could have been, and how are you to know unless you investigate?
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
Duty and Responsibility
I am a supporter of Edwards, but let's look at his duty and responsibility as well. He had a legal responsibility to his client to investigate the case closely to determine who might have been involved or negligent. I don't care what the law says, but in my opinion John Edwards also had a responsibility to all those being investigated to make sure he didn't ruin another innocent life by casting that net a little too wide. I'm not going to make that determination b/c I don't think any of us here has all the information necessary to say whether Edwards knew Dr. Sherrington had any culpability or not. However, if Edwards did and if he only included the doctor to increase the likelihood or amount of a settlement, then he does fall into the um.....slimey bastard category. Ruining one innocent life to revenge another is a pretty slimey thing to do and nobody here has any proof that Edwards did, nor do they have proof that he did not.
I don't care that the doctor is wealthy or earns a lot of money. Nobody should have to spend their money or time defending themselves against complaints that have only been levied as part of that wide net - whether it's everyone's hero John Edwards doing it or not.
You know, folks on this site like to really slam Jim Black even before charges have been brought. Even I've said that whether what he did was against the law or not, he should know the difference between right and wrong. That's how I feel about this particular discussion. I don't care what the rules of conduct/law allow a trial attorney to do on behalf of their client. At some point any decent man or woman should ask themselves if the lives that might be destroyed in their pursuit of revenge/justice for their client is worth the end result.
I really like John Edwards and I don't want him to be someone who would consider those hurt by any of his law suits as simply collateral damage. I don't want to believe that he thinks it's acceptable to damage other lives in pursuit of the goal he has/had for his clients. However, I don't consider these questions part of a right-wing smear. Many, many Democrats will be thinking the same things and asking the same questions. They are valid concerns.
Look at the current person sitting in the White House and ask yourself if he would care about anyone hurt by any of his actions. Of course he wouldn't. We don't want that same thing said of JRE, right?
SPLib isn't bringing up anything that shouldn't be discussed. Long before the Republicans get a shot at JRE the Democrats get their best shot. It's best to find out what their ammunition is going to be before they start shooting.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
A larger mistake than you understand.
What you call an only mistake is a very big mistake!
I don’t think you understand medical ethics very well, it is one thing to be a patient, another to be a relative (or parent) of the patient and to think a Doctor is wonderful just because he has done well with your child, which may not have ever had any real medical issues other than the usual cold, flu and vaccine. Count your blessings!
This Doctor you think is great, did not seem great to me. If he were on staff and the only Doctor that the Hospital could get in contact with, I don’t think much of the fact that all he did was say take an x-ray. The very least he should have done was care enough about a patient whether his or not, to go to the hospital to check the situation out for himself. Talking over the phone - what is that, you think that is satisfactory care? When he agreed to use the hospital in question or was a staff member there with privileges, surely he had some agreement to take responsibility for the needs of the hospitals patients as necessary. It wouldn’t be any different in a disaster situation, he would be expected to give it his all. Just because this is one newborn doesn’t make the gravity of the situation any less. Do you honestly consider taking a phone call and just suggesting an x-ray is satisfactory, and especially as you say with a patient that he wasn’t familiar with in the first place.
I think you are very naive in your understanding of the habits and practices of the truly dedicated physicians across America, and do the majority a grave injustice by suggesting that your friend was with out blame, and just because your friend did not use his best judgement at the time.
John Edwards can hardly be blamed for what you describe of a physician who seemingly neglected to take reasonable care at the proper time.
John Edwards
We definitely need reform. But it needs to be comprehensive reform that not only gets the lawyers in check but also does a better job of medical/physician peer review (the process by which physicians police their own).
Both systems are corrupt. Both systems protect their own and do not want to change the status quo.
As for John Edwards my thoughts are here.
go away
Just create a "RedNC" instead of bothering me.
HelpLarry.com
"Keep the Faith"
Strange
"Reform that gets lawyers in check" vs "physician peer review"
It would be tempting to conclude that you're not quite a disinterested observer in this fight. Why not "get physicians in check" and have "lawyer peer review."
I won't tell you to go away like Blue South did because I've opened our doors to all comers, so your comments are welcome. But I must say, anyone who admires the Bubba I've encountered at Ed Cone's place is starting from a position of questionable judgment in my book. Just sayin.
John Edwards
I've been told to "just go away" before, Anglico. No biggie because it doesn't work:) As for BlueSouth, "RedNC" doesn't wash either. I'm from Randolph County, and nobody, but nobody gets elected to anything unless they are a Republican. I'm fed up with the corruption and hypocrisy on BOTH sides.
And you're absolutely right. I'm far from a "disinterested observer". I'm one of the docs (on the bottom of the income totem pole) who gets called in to attend the gadzillions of C-Sections (now close to 35-40% of all births in some areas) . . . an alarming trend of which Edwards was a primary architect.
Re: physicians/lawyers in check and lawyers/physician peer review . . . why not all four? If honesty and ethics is what it's all about.
But it's not is it? It's about power. What Edwards got blinded by.
Bubba has been far kinder and gentler towards me/my cause than ConeofTHECones and the gang. Maybe that's what influences my judgement.
Just sayin.
Oooh A,
It's the kinder, gentler you...I like! :)
I am such a smartass....sorry.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
John Edwards
I'm used to smartasses too:)
I've spent eight years trying to get back a portion of what was unjustly taken from me . . . because I did what so many people on this thread would say was the right and ethical and medically correct thing. Those same people would scream for my head on a platter had I not done what I did. I got fired for it (those who screwed up did not spend a day out of work).
Where are these people when I need help holding somebody besides a doctor "accountable" for bad behavior? Doctors do not practice in a vacumm. Nobody seems to get that.
As for "kind and gentle", that was utilized fairly early on.
It does not work.
That's great.
I'm just curious, did you defend yourself? No, hired a trial lawyer perhaps?
I know that every good and excellent thing in the world stands moment by moment on the razor-edge of danger and must be fought for. ~ Thornton Wilder
Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me
You bet your fancy-pants
You bet your fancy-pants literary quote I did. And yes, I hired a trial lawyer (my life in shambles, I had no choice). He's a big Dem and fan of Edwards.
But since we're talking about malpractice on this thread, this trial lawyer committed legal malpractice. You see, he missed perjury and contempt on the part of the hospital administrators who did me wrong (by the way, their false answers were filed by "experts in non-profit matters" attorneys who should have known better). The case was settled in my favor . . . but the perjury cost me bigtime in terms of proper resitution. It's called bad faith and fraud. It also amounted to serious negligence and a breech of my lawyer's fiduciary obligation to his client.
But the State Bar protects its own ("just like doctors"). FYI,it's very hard to sue a lawyer for malpractice. They control the game.
It's also been virtually impossible to get law enforcment officers who are also politicians (like the DA and AG) to enforce the law and prosecute the case.
At the time I was in state and federal service. I begged Edwards (he who spoke so eloquently of the "Two Americas") for help. Got zip. He was too busy running for President.
It's a complicated case. I have a website and a blog where you can read all about it.
Well....I'm pretty good
at being a smartass, so at least I know you'll be able to deal with me at my worst.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
Why I will vote for John Edwards
John Edwards' career as a trial attorney was only the start of his fight for regular Americans who had been steamrolled by big corps and negligent doctors. People like Sandy Lakey, the mother of the little girl who had her intestines sucked out by a pool pump because the company refused to use a 2 cent part (because it cut a bit into their profits), will tell you that John Edwards' fought for their children as if they were his own children, ensuring that justice was served.
The little girl, Val Lakey, whose case was discussed in "Four Trials" may not be alive today, if John Edwards had not secured a decent settlement to cover her ongoing, intensive medical treatment that is required to keep her alive.
John Edwards continues his fight for regular Americans, particularly those in poverty and is precisely the type of leader that I want fighting for all of our children, including my own. He has worked tirelessly to promote social and economic justice despite the fact it is not a big "win votes" fight. He's dedicated to promoting our core values as Democrats and will take our party back to it's roots: Equality for all.
You see, I'm not so worried about sheilding doctors, most of whom make six figure salaries and big corporations whose CEOs who earn multimillion dollar salaries. It's "the people" who need someone to advocate for them, someone like John Edwards.
ditto
HelpLarry.com
"Keep the Faith"
I don't automatically hold people in contempt because they make
a lot of money. Otherwise, I'd have a helluvalotta contempt for John Edwards and that would suck.
Nobody deserves to be unjustly accused of anything whether they be rich or poor.
Robin Hayes lied. Nobody died, but thousands of folks lost their jobs.
***************************
Vote Democratic! The ass you save may be your own.
Pages