There's a lawyer for every case

[susan resnick]

Here's "one for the books" - here in the State of New York a class action lawsuit has been filed against McDonald's on behalf of fat kids (pardon the political incorrectness, I meant to say obese children.) This absurd litigation infuriates me more than the case by the klutz that spilled hot coffee on herself and won a huge monetary award. Lawyers are OUT OF CONTROL! Unfortunately most of our politicians (aka legislators) are former lawyers so it is impossible to fight for tort reform. We are all paying heavily when these suits occur (insurance costs, etc. are ultimately paid for by the consumer) and the only ones benefiting are the lawyers. Anyway, optometrically speaking, should we be worried that one day a patient will accuse us of causing high blood pressure due to systemic absorption of contact lens saline?

Just needed to vent... Happy Thanksgiving everyone!!
Susan

 

[Guest]

Strange but true

Susan,

Strangely enough, this is not the first group to sue McDonalds for their weight problem. A few months ago, on Good Morning America, an obese adult spoke representing his peers in their suit against McDonalds. He claimed that he didn't know fast food was bad for him and developed an "addiction" to it. After his 1st hear attack, his doctor told him he should no longer eat fast food at every meal, every day. And depsite that, he continued to stuff his face full of that greasy crap. After his second heart attack, he filed the suit. It's completely ludicrous.

However, here in Philadelphia we're watching a mass exodus of doctors and surgeons from our city. Why? The cost of malpractice insurance is simply out of control. And, while doctors should be held responsible for professional mis-conduct, these are not the type of suits that are increasing insurance rates. The rate increase is coming from the overwhelming number of patients filing frivolous health suits. Those individuals are causing the rest of the city to have a serious shortage of care. I think it's really a testament to the egomaniacal attitude that seems all too common in our society these days.

 

[Christopher Press]

Hi all,

Here in California, we have Prop 165. This law was initially passed as a means to protect consumers and the environment from potentially toxic substances, requiring those using certain chemicals in their place of business to place a sign near the door warning citizens of their use on premises, labels on products containing these chemicals (even in trace amounts).

In some ways, it was good: it required placing labels on bottles of beer warning pregnant mothers that drinking alcohol can be bad for the fetus, placing warnings on dinnerware and drinking glasses that contain lead, etc.

With time, "consumer rights" lawyers realized that a broader interpretation of the law allowed for shaking down business-owners and manufacturers, to the point where candlemakers were threatened with lawsuits since candles release small amounts of toxins when burning (as anything that burns will do), and they failed to place warnings on the candles.

Of course, the lawyers don't want to take it to court, but simply to extract a settlement from all of the manufacturers and businesses (who are willing, since they know putting up a proper legal defense would be much more costly). A legal form of Mafia-style shake-down, all in the name of protecting the public......

Now some lawyers are claiming an ingredient (called acrylamide) on the list is found in trace amounts in french fries and baked goods, and the lawyers are going after grocers, bakers, fast food restaurants, etc.

Warning signs are popping up all over, in many all public places (restaurants, hotels, etc), and a few infamous lawyers have been seen driving around, looking for potential targets with deep pockets. And it's not just the local businessman they're interested in, but also the manufacturers of the products that are in the building.

I'm looking into whether it may be prudent to put a generic warning sign outside optometry clinics, since some of the chemicals used (alcohol swab pads, lead in lenses, for example) may potentially make our profession a target.

The prudent thing is to just put the sign up now, since there's no harm in putting out the warning EVEN IF there's no reason to suspect harm.

Think I'm stretching the truth?

http://www.calprop65.com/

Chris

 

[Wilson Sue]

Hi All

In New Zealand we have Accident Compensation scheme introduced by NZ government 1974. It provides accident insurance for all NZ residents and tourists no matter who is at fault, but you give up the right to sue for personal injury.

Paid for through the taxation system and we pay higher taxes (our social welfare pays for lots of other things too). One side effect is that we basically don't have ambulance chasing lawyers or a litigative population. Covers medical misadventure, malpractice insurance for optometrists is low (less than the retail price of a pair of multicoated mid index new design progressives) as I don't think anyone has ever been sued.

 

[Ikechi Ekezie]

There is indeed a lawyer for every case

Hello fellow contributors,
The only real value of this contribution is to highlight the increasingly absurdly litigatious world in which we both live and work.

There is a case that is going through the courts here in the United Kingdom involving a man who is has been described as a career criminal as he has never had a job in his 32 years of life and has actually spent most of these years in prison for one offence or another, yet who is suing a burglary victim of his for - would you believe- loss of earnings as he has been unable to work since the incident.
This is because since the burglary, in which he was injured by the home owner who was defending his property, our friend has been suffering from the physical effects of his injuries and from post traumatic stress syndrome. We are told that additionally, now, whenever he sees somebody being shot on TV, he breaks down in tears, and his social life is suffering in other ways too. His argument is that his victim had a duty of care not to hurt him during the attempted burglary!
There is obviously some lawyer who shares his philosophy hence the legal action. As this 'victim' is unemployed, to add insult to injury, the case is being paid for by legal aid ie the taxpayer. Amazing stuff.

Finally, there is another heart warming story in the newspapers today about a pleasant, shy and reserved gentleman who is serving a life sentence the offence was not stated (probably for murder). He is suing his prison for not investing his wages for him for the last several years of his tenure, thereby denying him of the benefits of that 8th wonder of the modern world - compound interest- while he has been locked up.

On this cheerful note have a happy New Year everybody and in the words of a certain Mr Springer the famous American intellectual - 'Take care of yourselves - and each other'


Ikechi Ekezie MCOptom FAAO