Once again, you are the judge
A little while ago I posted the cirumstances of a case and asking doc2doc members to judge the case from a negligence point of view. There were some excellent responses (particularly Adrianleahy and...
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
Are the names fictitious, and if not shouldn't they be?
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
The names are not fictitious. The account is published here exactly as it appears in the public record, media and the judgement of the court. Law cases are published with the names of the parties...
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
In Response to Once again, you are the judge: If the names are fictitious did the surgeon have to be 'Chatterjee' ? Not Brown or Smith? We are not told of what the level of expertise the surgeon has....
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
1. I am not sure what your point is. As stated all the names of medical staff are not fictitious -therefore that is why I am using their real names. It is perfectly normal practice in legal cases. In...
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
I have reported the above post to the doc2doc team as inappropriate. Kirked
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
In response to "Re: Once again, you are the judge": [QUOTE]I have read many posts about this case as my daughter recently gave birth to her first child at this same hospital I think, No fibrous or...
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
The fact that the bladder was hurt isn´t so important. Did the pt suffer from any permanent health problems ?
View ArticleRe: Once again, you are the judge
Hi Carolyn,I am sorry but I cant remember off hand, this scenario was posted in April 2012. Was 'reactivated' by Read. Will get back to you.Kirked
View Article
