Reverse Patch Diving

[waterpirate]

My professional card for the day job says under my name were the big title goes " just some guy ". On the benches on the boat or at the bar, the same statement applies.
Eric

 

[NAM001]

You will probably never hear bad things because those whoare seeking coaching leave with more than they came in with. The problem comes when one gets hurt and the fingers start to point. On this side of the pond it is guarenteed to become a legal nightmare.

Example. person goes to doctor with heart issue. patient needs a stint or will be dead in 2-3 months. Stint gos in all is well for 10 years and the stint fails and the patient sues for compensation of the failure with no regard of the 10 years he benifited from the stint being nstalled. Basically wanting money from the doctor extending a life for 10 years. That is USA. I am sure other countries are not so focused on suits as the US is.

Professional coaching seems to be quite a popular thing in UK diving. I know many instructors who do a 1-2 day coaching session either with an individual or a small group (no more than 3) of divers. They work on all manner of things, from trim and buoyancy control, line laying, fundies prep, or just as a confidence builder because someone has had something happen and they **** themselves. I've read reports on another dive forum from new-ish divers to quite experienced divers about their experience with coaching and why they did it, what they got from it, etc. It's not a bad things.

 

[doctormike]

You will probably never hear bad things because those whoare seeking coaching leave with more than they came in with. The problem comes when one gets hurt and the fingers start to point. On this side of the pond it is guarenteed to become a legal nightmare.

Example. person goes to doctor with heart issue. patient needs a stint or will be dead in 2-3 months. Stint gos in all is well for 10 years and the stint fails and the patient sues for compensation of the failure with no regard of the 10 years he benifited from the stint being nstalled. Basically wanting money from the doctor extending a life for 10 years. That is USA. I am sure other countries are not so focused on suits as the US is.

OK, thread hijack, but I'm the OP so I get to do that if I want to!

KWS, I know that it's easy to make straw man arguments about medical malpractice, but the situation that you describe really isn't feasible. Remember, even though there is this idea floating around that anyone can sue anyone for anything, and that frivolous lawsuits are very common, there is one thing defending against that. Plaintiff's lawyers generally won't - and shouldn't - work for free.

That means, they aren't likely to put potentially years of work into a case that is likely going to be dismissed, or even settled for a small amount of money. That means that they are better than anyone at sniffing out frivolous lawsuits. That probably goes for diving related lawsuits as well (but I don't know much about that particular field).

Leaving aside the fact that your stent case would actually be a product liability case against the device manufacturer (completely different thing), let's assume that the doctor actually is being sued, because the plaintiff's attorney is claiming that the stent was put in wrong or something.

In order for there to be a successful medical malpractice lawsuit, you need to show a doctor-patient relationship (present in this case), implying a duty of care (present). Then there needs to be damages - in this case, you would have to show that the patient died after 10 years when he would normally have lived for 20 years in this particular case (difficult to prove, but possible, depending on the particulars). THEN, you need to show that the doctor deviated from an accepted standard of care and was negligent (e.g. he put the stent in sideways, or in the nose, or something like that).

So while legal liability is something that any professional needs to live with, it does seem that lots of instructors are willing to teach outside of an agency approved class. If we really were in such a minefield, people might not teach diving at all...

 

[NAM001]

One has to watch TV for an hour to prove your point is wrong. Ambulance chasers are all over. I dont blame professionals for not doing any training or mentoring evolutions without assuring they were covered by thier liability coverage. Your responce is proof of that. perhaps i should have used an example of someone tripping and falling on a mentoring evolution. It does not make any difference if the suit was sound or not, our sue to retirement mentality in the US is something that all has to watch out for.

OK, thread hijack, but I'm the OP so I get to do that if I want to!

KWS, I know that it's easy to make straw man arguments about medical malpractice, but the situation that you describe really isn't feasible. Remember, even though there is this idea floating around that anyone can sue anyone for anything, and that frivolous lawsuits are very common, there is one thing defending against that. Plaintiff's lawyers generally won't - and shouldn't - work for free.

That means, they aren't likely to put potentially years of work into a case that is likely going to be dismissed, or even settled for a small amount of money. That means that they are better than anyone at sniffing out frivolous lawsuits. That probably goes for diving related lawsuits as well (but I don't know much about that particular field).

Leaving aside the fact that your stent case would actually be a product liability case against the device manufacturer (completely different thing), let's assume that the doctor actually is being sued, because the plaintiff's attorney is claiming that the stent was put in wrong or something.

In order for there to be a successful medical malpractice lawsuit, you need to show a doctor-patient relationship (present in this case), implying a duty of care (present). Then there needs to be damages - in this case, you would have to show that the patient died after 10 years when he would normally have lived for 20 years in this particular case (difficult to prove, but possible, depending on the particulars). THEN, you need to show that the doctor deviated from an accepted standard of care and was negligent (e.g. he put the stent in sideways, or in the nose, or something like that).

So while legal liability is something that any professional needs to live with, it does seem that lots of instructors are willing to teach outside of an agency approved class. If we really were in such a minefield, people might not teach diving at all...

 

[doctormike]

One has to watch TV for an hour to prove your point is wrong. Ambulance chasers are all over.

OK, I'm wrong.

I dont blame professionals for not doing any training or mentoring evolutions without assuring they were covered by thier liability coverage. Your responce is proof of that.

Proof of what? That you don't blame pros for not training without liability coverage? I don't think that you need to prove that.

perhaps i should have used an example of someone tripping and falling on a mentoring evolution. It does not make any difference if the suit was sound or not, our sue to retirement mentality in the US is something that all has to watch out for.

Care to cite any data there? Or is it just common knowledge?

Here's a study of worldwide litigation rates per 1000 population. In that paper, the USA came in 5th out of 10 western democracies with 74/1000, after Germany (123), Sweden (111), Israel (96), and Austria (95) - (Christian Wollschlager, Exploring Global Landscapes of Litigation Rates, in Sociology of Law, 1998.)

Here's another interesting fact. Torts (the "ambulance chasing" cases that you are discussing) are about 4% of all civil litigation in the USA, and that percentage is dropping, with the total numbers down by about 25% from 1999 to 2008. (Richard LaFountain et al., Examining the Work of State Courts: An Analysis of 2008 State Court Caseloads (National Center for State Courts 2010)

Now I'm no expert, and I'm no lawyer. If you are going to teach diving under any circumstances - as part of a course or as an independent coach - you had better make sure that you have coverage. I'm certainly not implying that litigation isn't a big concern of any professional in scuba diving, medicine, or any other endeavor where someone might get injured. But over the top hyperbole without facts to back it up doesn't help those of us who do need to deal with liability in a reasonable fashion. We need to address it so that it doesn't prevent us from teaching diving, or treating patients, in an appropriate manner.

 

[NAM001]

OK, I'm wrong.




Proof of what? That you don't blame pros for not training without liability coverage? I don't think that you need to prove that..

Read your own last paragraph.

If you are going to teach diving under any circumstances - as part of a course or as an independent coach - you had better make sure that you have coverage..

My point exactly

I'm certainly not implying that litigation isn't a big concern.

Because it is a big concern like i said.

But over the top hyperbole without facts t.

One does not need facts. Only a basic understanding of human nature

o back it up doesn't help those of us who do need to deal with liability in a reasonable fashion.
We need to address it so that it doesn't prevent us from teaching diving, or treating patients, in an appropriate manner.

You adress it by insuring you have coverage for your training or mentoring evolutions.


Thanks I think to some extent you worded my position better than me.

 

[doctormike]

One does not need facts.

OK, at this point I'm not sure what we are debating...


I think that we are both saying that litigation is a real thing, and that if you are going to teach diving you need liability insurance. I don't think that either of those are controversial statements.

 

[NAM001]

I agree

OK, at this point I'm not sure what we are debating...


I think that we are both saying that litigation is a real thing, and that if you are going to teach diving you need liability insurance. I don't think that either of those are controversial statements.