WWTBAM Bored

I made it.

The McClatchy Publishing Center in Charlotte edits and designs three newspapers, which did not make budget. We had to cut about 8 staffers of 43.

The calls went out this morning and I didn't get one so I am safe.

Thank goodness!

Sorry to hear that but Yay for you!

Congrats.

Glad you are not one of the ones that got cut.
What is happening to all the journalist jobs? Are they going to online sources? I see so many young kids that "blog" but don't have the skill sets as far as grammar and investigative work ethics.

geoffil wrote:Glad you are not one of the ones that got cut.
What is happening to all the journalist jobs? Are they going to online sources? I see so many young kids that "blog" but don't have the skill sets as far as grammar and investigative work ethics.

You can call me Skoop 2.

http://blog.cvn.com/savannah-doctor-win ... er-georgia

Glad to hear Skoop 1 survived the cut.

Yay!

Yay for Skoop1.

Almost yay for SSSkoop2.

SSS.

How in the world did the doctor win? What is your opinion on the verdict?

Great article.

I fear for the future of newspapers in this country. Personally, I don't see how we can get along without them, but I worry. Our newspaper seems to get smaller every year with less substantive content.

Glad you're safe, Skoop.

geoffil wrote:SSS.

How in the world did the doctor win? What is your opinion on the verdict?

Great article.

I would have voted for the defense. Their doctors satisfactorily explained where there was no malpractice.

Bob Juch wrote:

geoffil wrote:SSS.

How in the world did the doctor win? What is your opinion on the verdict?

Great article.

I would have voted for the defense. Their doctors satisfactorily explained where there was no malpractice.

In his closing argument, the defense attorney summed up the statistics regarding the number of demonstrated bad reactions that had been reported to that type of shot that the doctor gave, and it was in neighborhood of one in several hundred thousand. As he put it, the risk was less than the risk the patient could have been killed while driving to the pain clinic or by being struck by lightning. So, there was a safer way to give the shot, but it would probably not have been as effective in dealing with the patient's pain, and the risk, if you believed the defense's experts, was still very minimal giving that type of shot.

Some interesting statistics. Our company started our Georgia section around the first of July of last year. In the last six months of the year, they covered seven trials and one hearing. Their method of finding cases was rather haphazard (occasionally searching through the records in one of the courthouses). Since I started, I was able to access online court records in most of the major counties and search for cases in a more organized fashion and also get some referrals from other attorneys. In three months, we've covered 18 trials and one hearing.

Of the 16 trials that have had been decided (two are ongoing now), we've had eight plaintiff's verdicts (ranging from $5,000 to $73 million), two mistrials, one directed verdict for the defendant (when the plaintiff rested, the judge ruled for the defense as a matter of law without having the jury decide the case), and five verdicts for the defense. The $73 million case included attorney's fees and punitive damages that were reduced by the judge.

silverscreenselect wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:

geoffil wrote:SSS.

How in the world did the doctor win? What is your opinion on the verdict?

Great article.

I would have voted for the defense. Their doctors satisfactorily explained where there was no malpractice.

In his closing argument, the defense attorney summed up the statistics regarding the number of demonstrated bad reactions that had been reported to that type of shot that the doctor gave, and it was in neighborhood of one in several hundred thousand. As he put it, the risk was less than the risk the patient could have been killed while driving to the pain clinic or by being struck by lightning. So, there was a safer way to give the shot, but it would probably not have been as effective in dealing with the patient's pain, and the risk, if you believed the defense's experts, was still very minimal giving that type of shot.

Some interesting statistics. Our company started our Georgia section around the first of July of last year. In the last six months of the year, they covered seven trials and one hearing. Their method of finding cases was rather haphazard (occasionally searching through the records in one of the courthouses). Since I started, I was able to access online court records in most of the major counties and search for cases in a more organized fashion and also get some referrals from other attorneys. In three months, we've covered 18 trials and one hearing.

Of the 16 trials that have had been decided (two are ongoing now), we've had eight plaintiff's verdicts (ranging from $5,000 to $73 million), two mistrials, one directed verdict for the defendant (when the plaintiff rested, the judge ruled for the defense as a matter of law without having the jury decide the case), and five verdicts for the defense. The $73 million case included attorney's fees and punitive damages that were reduced by the judge.

Georgia has a doctor-friendly law that says the doctor is always presumed to have acted with reasonable care. I know that was a factor in the recent trial where a doctor punctured a patient's heart with a catheter.

Bob Juch wrote:Georgia has a doctor-friendly law that says the doctor is always presumed to have acted with reasonable care. I know that was a factor in the recent trial where a doctor punctured a patient's heart with a catheter.

So presumed innocent, to start. Not a bad idea. Do you not like that presumption?

How many of the layoffs were older workers? All, or just most?

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Georgia has a doctor-friendly law that says the doctor is always presumed to have acted with reasonable care. I know that was a factor in the recent trial where a doctor punctured a patient's heart with a catheter.

So presumed innocent, to start. Not a bad idea. Do you not like that presumption?

The 'presumed innocent' is for criminal cases/charges. No such presumption in civil matters, afaik.

tlynn78 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Georgia has a doctor-friendly law that says the doctor is always presumed to have acted with reasonable care. I know that was a factor in the recent trial where a doctor punctured a patient's heart with a catheter.

So presumed innocent, to start. Not a bad idea. Do you not like that presumption?

The 'presumed innocent' is for criminal cases/charges. No such presumption in civil matters, afaik.

This is more a matter of semantics than anything else. In most civil cases, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing every element of their case by preponderance of the evidence (slightly more likely than not). In most situations there are no presumptions of either due care or a lack thereof. In some situations, either by statute or case law, defendants are presumed to be negligent in certain situations (a common instance of this is when a defendant is cited for a traffic violation like speeding, DUI, or running a red light that leads to an accident). Under these circumstances, the plaintiff does not have to do anything more to establish the defendant was negligent and it's up to the defendant to prove (by a preponderance of the evidence) that he was not negligent.

A physician in Georgia is presumed to have acted with due care, and the plaintiff must introduce expert testimony as to what the standard of care is and that the defendant physician violated it. However, he is only required to do so by a preponderance of the evidence... in other words, the same burden he has always had.

tlynn78 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Bob Juch wrote:Georgia has a doctor-friendly law that says the doctor is always presumed to have acted with reasonable care. I know that was a factor in the recent trial where a doctor punctured a patient's heart with a catheter.

So presumed innocent, to start. Not a bad idea. Do you not like that presumption?

The 'presumed innocent' is for criminal cases/charges. No such presumption in civil matters, afaik.

The 'required' presumption is legally set for criminal cases, but as a moral starting point no matter what the case, even if it is "Who ate the last cookie?", the presumption of innocence for the accused, in my opinion, the right starting position.

elwoodblues wrote:How many of the layoffs were older workers? All, or just most?

Three in their early- to mid-50s (two were voluntary)

Two in their early 40s

Two in their early 30s

Two in their late 20s (both voluntary)

The bosses knew they could not lay off all only older folks, though those are the ones making the higher salaries, so money-wise, it was good when two of them raised their hands to leave voluntarily.

Ritterskoop wrote:

elwoodblues wrote:How many of the layoffs were older workers? All, or just most?

Three in their early- to mid-50s (two were voluntary)

Two in their early 40s

Two in their early 30s

Two in their late 20s (both voluntary)

The bosses knew they could not lay off all only older folks, though those are the ones making the higher salaries, so money-wise, it was good when two of them raised their hands to leave voluntarily.

Thanks. If you have read any of my posts you know age discrimination is an issue with me.

elwoodblues wrote: Thanks. If you have read any of my posts you know age discrimination is an issue with me.

I did remember, and I hope this shows everywhere is not like that.

Ritterskoop wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: Thanks. If you have read any of my posts you know age discrimination is an issue with me.

I did remember, and I hope this shows everywhere is not like that.

That is heartening and laudable. I still remember T-Bone's wife's ordeal with Applebee's. Haven't eaten there since, bahstids.

tlynn78 wrote:

Ritterskoop wrote:

elwoodblues wrote: Thanks. If you have read any of my posts you know age discrimination is an issue with me.

I did remember, and I hope this shows everywhere is not like that.

That is heartening and laudable. I still remember T-Bone's wife's ordeal with Applebee's. Haven't eaten there since, bahstids.

I don't remember this at all. Would you mind edumacating me? --Bob

[/quote]I don't remember this at all. Would you mind edumacating me? --Bob[/quote]


I don't actually remember the details precisely, but I do remember she was 'laid off' from her manager position and then replaced with a younger, lower-paid worker.