Suit filed in case of "Girl dead, boy injured at Glacier National Park

[Jcp2]

If medical boards allow doctors to continue practicing after a number of deaths, then your point is completely valid and mine is invalid.

However, if medical boards kick out doctors from continuing to practice after committing malpractice, then the reverse is true.

Which is it?

Yes, patients die under a doctors care all the time and as long there is no malpractice and the death is due to the disease or ailment or old age, the doctor continues to practice.

No, a malpractice suit is not a reason to lose a medical license. If it were, there would be very few doctors left. Almost everybody gets sued over their lifetime, and many times the suits are settled for economic reasons, not because of malpractice. And even so, it takes a particularly egregious pattern of malpractice, which is a civil matter, for a license to be revoked. It becomes easier when there are criminal convictions involved. The loss of a medical license is the loss of a livelihood, and members of medical boards can be sued for that, so due process is followed assiduously.

 

[Omisson]

Not that attorney.

Are you saying that a personal injury attorney would put any consideration above the ability of a client to recover for a loss? Seriously?

there Is exactly ONE reason to sue PADI under these circumstances…. Financial Ability to collect a judgment. PERIOD. It’s certainly not the facts or current case law/precedents….

 

[Omisson]

Do state medical boards allow doctors with multiple fatalities continue to practice?

If not, why does PADI allow dive centers/instructors who have done so? Like Seattle Scuba in Seattle that suddenly closed down recently. Home | Seattle Scuba Info. I believe Tareq Saade was also a student of Seattle Scuba (West Seattle diving-accident victim: Award-winning volunteer).

If medical boards allow doctors to continue practicing after a number of deaths, then your point is completely valid and mine is invalid.

However, if medical boards kick out doctors from continuing to practice after committing malpractice, then the reverse is true.

Which is it?

Shows how little you know about medical boards. They don’t suspend a license to practice medicine because of a fatality… or multiple fatalities. It’s only when the malpractice piles up and there is a sufficient quantum of proof assembled that they act- or if a case gets lots of public attention- like when criminal charges are filed.

So, the reason for this is that most state medical boards are set up to protect the doctors who are licensed- they contain a provision usually along these lines:

“[To be suspended] the evidence must unequivocally indicate that the conduct of the licensee did not conform to the conduct of a member of the same profession exercising reasonable care and skill, supplemented by testimony to the effect that other professionals would have utilized a different procedure is insufficient to establish negligence or incompetence[xi].”

I think people have really strange ideas about how these systems work- and they project that into “just so” stories they tell themselves about “how things must be” - then wonder why reality doesn’t map on to their projections.

So in short, yea- you are absolutely wrong.

 

[wetb4igetinthewater]

Shows how little you know about medical boards. They don’t suspend a license to practice medicine because of a fatality… or multiple fatalities. It’s only when the malpractice piles up and there is a sufficient quantum of proof assembled that they act- or if a case gets lots of public attention- like when criminal charges are filed.

So, the reason for this is that most state medical boards are set up to protect the doctors who are licensed- they contain a provision usually along these lines:

“[To be suspended] the evidence must unequivocally indicate that the conduct of the licensee did not conform to the conduct of a member of the same profession exercising reasonable care and skill, supplemented by testimony to the effect that other professionals would have utilized a different procedure is insufficient to establish negligence or incompetence[xi].”

I think people have really strange ideas about how these systems work- and they project that into “just so” stories they tell themselves about “how things must be” - then wonder why reality doesn’t map on to their projections.

So in short, yea- you are absolutely wrong.

The problem with your analogy is that practicing medicine is complex. Teaching scuba diving is not. There are cases where doctors treat people where they do their best effort and the patient is still going to die. When it comes to non medical emergencies, wouldn't you agree that deaths during scuba diving is negligence on some level?

Transfer that negligence to the medical field, and yeah the board is going to kick out that doctor. Right? If so, I'm not wrong.

 

[cerich]

The problem with your analogy is that practicing medicine is complex. Teaching scuba diving is not. There are cases where doctors treat people where they do their best effort and the patient is still going to die. When it comes to non medical emergencies, wouldn't you agree that deaths during scuba diving is negligence on some level?

Transfer that negligence to the medical field, and yeah the board is going to kick out that doctor. Right? If so, I'm not wrong.

naw, it's perfectly reasonable to equate medical practice where people are likely to die without medical efforts that don't always work or go wrong with scuba instruction

 

[Omisson]

The problem with your analogy is that practicing medicine is complex. Teaching scuba diving is not. There are cases where doctors treat people where they do their best effort and the patient is still going to die. When it comes to non medical emergencies, wouldn't you agree that deaths during scuba diving is negligence on some level?

Transfer that negligence to the medical field, and yeah the board is going to kick out that doctor. Right? If so, I'm not wrong.

Let’s be clear-you lost the argument THEN you decided to then move the goal post. I gave an analogy- you didn’t object- and when the facts didn’t work- you change the parameters.

It’s not the complexity that is the issue. It’s the law of Agency. You want it to be PADI’s fault. So you keep trying to invent ways to find them liable- despite precedent and common sense.

Lets explore your “deaths from diving” is instructor/training agency negligence claim… statistically it’s not- at all.

First according to DAN stats there are a host of medical condition related deaths (33%) Take those out. Then there are diver errors (45%) take those out. Equipment failures, (8%) Finally the ”other” category: shark attack, run over by boat, undeserved DCS hit, etc (3%) ….. So that leaves 1% of diver deaths during instruction that are presumed to be related to instructor error….. that amounts to .25 deaths in 14, of 100,000 divers. See a problem with your premise yet?

so no, both the analogy and conclusion holds. It’s your perspective that doesn’t.

 

[Wookie]

Are you saying that a personal injury attorney would put any consideration above the ability of a client to recover for a loss? Seriously?

there Is exactly ONE reason to sue PADI under these circumstances…. Financial Ability to collect a judgment. PERIOD. It’s certainly not the facts or current case law/precedents….

I’ll let you do your own research.

David Concannon has been the plaintiffs attorney twice. The first was for Ashley Brugge when her husband died in rebreather training in Hawaii. It isn’t hard to find out how much of a fee he collected when he won. The answer may or may not surprise you.

The second time was for Mr. and Mrs Mills. It only takes a slight amount of digging to figure out what the relationship is there, and it isn’t money.

David is a defendant’s attorney. But his income is barely derived from scuba diving. He has a much more lucrative clientele, again, I’ll let you do your own research. Look at where he generates his speaking fees from (which he donates away).

But I completely understand why you would have a low opinion of lawyers.

So, to use your words, yeah, you are absolutely wrong.

 

[Omisson]

naw, it's perfectly reasonable to equate medical practice where people are likely to die without medical efforts that don't always work or go wrong with scuba instruction

The analogy is based on agency law and it’s application. Not the specifics of the industry’s “life saving” function. Are you really that obtuse?


Again, the too clever by a half crowd doesn’t understand how to parse an argument into its components. One is a legal corollary, relating how courts view agency and the necessary components to impute it…. The other is a knee jerk overblowing of “deaths” (ie the sensationalist American media manner). You can actually count the number of instructor caused deaths that are in suit now on one hand… and suits are years in the pipeline. But when one happens -BAM- everyone gets to talking. It’s exactly the same with the “mass shootings” nonsense. Chicago has “mass shootings” every day, 365… all gang and crime created…all black on black. No one says “we need to do something”. A Lone wacko pops 4 people randomly or because they are “enter ethnicity here”- and it’s full blown media coverage- wall to wall “we must stop gun violence” and “end assault weapons” ( no one can even really define it either) and “it’s everywhere and getting worse’- even though statistics tell a very different reality…..

But people’s perception creates reality.

And, as I cited from DAN previously, scuba deaths are in fact In-line with every major sport activity involving some risk- and unlike most of them, scuba warns you over and over- that there is inherent risk in this activity… it’s on every video, in every form, and every book.

but hey, why let facts mess with a good narrative it’s working in politics today….

 

[boulderjohn]

In one of your more recent attacks, you cited the case of Tareq Saade, and you use his 2012 fatality to attack the shop through which he was being trained. For some reason you were unable to find the ScubaBoard thread about the incident. If you review it in its entirety, you will see that several people did all they could to blame the instructor for the death, but in the end the people who recovered the body, including the highly reputable Lamont (then the moderator of the DIR forum on ScubaBoard), concluded that absolutely nothing was done wrong. The dive had gone according to plan, and everything was within standards. The class was routinely headed back to shore. The student, a reasonably experienced diver taking an AOW class, suddenly and without warning bolted to the surface and died.

What would you have done differently on that dive?

I believe every instructor in every class has the potential for something like that to happen, so we with perfect safety records are all to some extent lucky not to being named as something akin to a murderer on ScubaBoard.

 

[Omisson]

I’ll let you do your own research.

David Concannon has been the plaintiffs attorney twice. The first was for Ashley Brugge when her husband died in rebreather training in Hawaii. It isn’t hard to find out how much of a fee he collected when he won. The answer may or may not surprise you.

The second time was for Mr. and Mrs Mills. It only takes a slight amount of digging to figure out what the relationship is there, and it isn’t money.

David is a defendant’s attorney. But his income is barely derived from scuba diving. He has a much more lucrative clientele, again, I’ll let you do your own research. Look at where he generates his speaking fees from (which he donates away).

But I completely understand why you would have a low opinion of lawyers.

Again- you don’t seem to understand the points being made- hardly surprising given your PADI animus which has been on display in countless threads. No plaintiffs lawyer EVER brings a suit without considering how a case can be litigated AND collected. You could be mother Theresa, it doesn’t change things you need to consider in who you sue, and the theory and how to recover a judgment.

what’s funny is you are acting like people - let alone other people who have practiced law- don’t KNOW who DC is - which is really bizarre. And that being said, maybe you should take his advice:

"For now, however, it is important to remember that there are two sides to every story and the truth is somewhere in the middle. Allegations in a lawsuit are not always truthful or accurate, and the litigation process tends to reveal facts that are not always represented when a complaint is filed." David Concannon, Concannon and Charles Law Firm

but hey- keep churning…. Something’s gonna get mucked up….