mistrial in Weis case

[BradfordPatsFan]

Just saw on WBZ that a mistrial is declared in the Charlie Weis trial after a juror collapsed during testimoy and was treated by two defendant doctors.

 

[AirForcePatFan]

Are you serious or is this a joke?

 

[pats1]

Boston.com:

BREAKING NEWS: A mistrial has been declared in the medical malpractice lawsuit brought by former Patriots offensive coordinator Charlie Weis after the two defendant doctors attended to a juror who collapsed during testimony. --Developing

 

[AirForcePatFan]

DANG!! What are the odds???? I fell bad for Charlie, hopefully everything will work out...

 

[pats1]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...dame_coachs_malpractice_trial_in_second_week/

 

[PatsFanSince74]

I have to admit that I haven't followed the case very closely other than its broad outlines to the effect that CW believes he was endangered by the actions (or lack thereof) of his doctors after his surgery. Does anyone on the Board have a reasonably objective view on the merits of his case?

 

[Drewwho]

Well, now they can get Brady on the stand under oath and throw some baby questions at him

 

[FreeTedWilliams]

I have to admit that I haven't followed the case very closely other than its broad outlines to the effect that CW believes he was endangered by the actions (or lack thereof) of his doctors after his surgery. Does anyone on the Board have a reasonably objective view on the merits of his case?

Charlies basic claim is that they didn't tell him all the risks (which is iffy at best, they usually do) and that they knew he had internal bleeding and did nothing until he was almost dead (better cause than the first).

I can see how the judge had no recourse but to declare a mistrail, the two doctors accused of malpractice, helping to save the life of a juror.

I mean Charlies has plenty-o-money now, but I guess if he doesn't proceed his lawyers would sue him for not letting them sue the doctors.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Charlies basic claim is that they didn't tell him all the risks (which is iffy at best, they usually do) and that they knew he had internal bleeding and did nothing until he was almost dead (better cause than the first).

I can see how the judge had no recourse but to declare a mistrail, the two doctors accused of malpractice, helping to save the life of a juror.

I mean Charlies has plenty-o-money now, but I guess if he doesn't proceed his lawyers would sue him for not letting them sue the doctors.

thanks for your views on the case. i'm no lawyer and i wasn't in the courtroom, but i can see that the judge had to declare a mistrial. also, i agree that everybody's in pretty deep now and he probably turned down a settlement that he/his lawyers didn't think was enough.

 

[shmessy]

This is turning out to be one helluva an offseason!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Well, now they can get Brady on the stand under oath and throw some baby questions at him

Hoping for another quote in tomorrow's inside track are we?

 

[SoonerPatriot]

Charlies basic claim is that they didn't tell him all the risks (which is iffy at best, they usually do) and that they knew he had internal bleeding and did nothing until he was almost dead (better cause than the first).

I can see how the judge had no recourse but to declare a mistrail, the two doctors accused of malpractice, helping to save the life of a juror.

I mean Charlies has plenty-o-money now, but I guess if he doesn't proceed his lawyers would sue him for not letting them sue the doctors.

You make a good point on Charlie's legal recourse, especially the part about the internal bleeding.

Having known two people who have had this surgery, I know it is an extremely risky procedure despite how it's portrayed in the media. I too find it difficult to believe that the risks were not explained before the surgery.

I've always felt this kind of treatment for weight problems is not always the best way to go. Like Ritalin, it's overprescribed. My friend lost about 150 pounds in less than 4 months. He's thin now, but looks like very unhealthy 2 years later. He actually looks far worse than he did before the surgery despite being supposedly "healthier". Also, many who have it done simply go back to their old habits and gain the weight back. If you don't correct behavior the surgery is pointless IMO.

 

[DESERTPAT]

Charlies basic claim is that they didn't tell him all the risks (which is iffy at best, they usually do) and that they knew he had internal bleeding and did nothing until he was almost dead (better cause than the first).

I can see how the judge had no recourse but to declare a mistrail, the two doctors accused of malpractice, helping to save the life of a juror.

I mean Charlies has plenty-o-money now, but I guess if he doesn't proceed his lawyers would sue him for not letting them sue the doctors.

In this day and age you need to sign 10 or so pages for wart removal so the Doctors can cover there butts. You can't tell be Charlie wasn't aware of the risks. I also believe he had a problem with a contractor and he refused to pay him. Seems to me it is a risky business to enter into contract with Charlie Weiss. He needs to stay out of the buffet line, his a-s looks just as big now as it did in the pre-surgery days.

 

[fgssand]

In this day and age you need to sign 10 or so pages for wart removal so the Doctors can cover there butts. You can't tell be Charlie wasn't aware of the risks. I also believe he had a problem with a contractor and he refused to pay him. Seems to me it is a risky business to enter into contract with Charlie Weiss. He needs to stay out of the buffet line, his a-s looks just as big now as it did in the pre-surgery days.

Risks are one thing...malpractice due to a screw up is quite another.....

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

If the case has gone this far, Charlie must have some evidence of failure to warn -- enough that the judge has not thrown it out on motion.

On the mistrial, pretty much a no brainer. Frustrating for the judge, lawyers, parties, and the other jurors, but sometimes there's no choice.

This significantly increases the odds of a settlement. First, the parties are hemmed in pretty good by their testimony, which can be used in the next trial to keep them boxed in to their story in this trial. Second, though, each party has seen a preview of the other's case, which will seriously impact each side's case and should give each side a realistic view of their chance of success. Third, another trial will be expensive.

That said, often these cases can never settle, given the reputational interests at stake.

 

[DarrylS]

Not sure about the 10 pages of paper to sign before surgery, have had kidney surgery 2 years ago and hernia surgery last Aug 15. The first was very painful, and no one told me even close to how painful it would be and the side effects. When I had my hernia operation the doctor told me that lots of folks go back to work after 48 hours, it is now 6 months + since the hernia op and I still have pretty good pain. I have switched surgeons, and am scheduled for a bunch of tests to find out the source of pain, but it is a pain in the groin.

In both surgeries, the paperwork was minimal and in both cases they were rushed.

 

[MoLewisrocks]

Risks are one thing...malpractice due to a screw up is quite another.....

That's it in a nutshell. From what little testimony I heard it seemed the docs were trying to cover themselves in how they warned the patient it was risky and he not only proceeded but pushed for an expedited surgery. At one point I heard them claim they would have preferred he wait until the off season - must have meant theirs because it was done during his. If they screwed the surgery up at a later date, what difference would that make? If they gave him plenty of warning about the risks involved even absent a screw up, but his problem can be traced to an actual screw up (like not realizing he was bleeding internally for 30 hours) it's still malpractice.

Charlie's pretty well set so this isn't about the money, it's principle for him at this point. And his lawyers wouldn't take on a case like this unless they had a pretty good idea there was a reasonable basis on which to collect their 30% cut of the settlement.

There are a number of bypass surgeries available these days because the original version proved so inherently dangerous. People now have to undergo months of counseling and screening to insure they can cope with the still daunting aftereffects and adhere to a prescribed followup diet and exercise program. Charlie obviously can't because of the nerve damage to his legs. I read somewhere recently that Charlie actually had the least invasive lap band procedure, and it has since been reversed probably due to health issues in the aftermath of the initial procedure. That would explain his weight rebound which would not occur with the older intestinal bypass which is irreversible. I have a relative who recently looked into the lap band procedure because she is morbidly obese exacerbated by an inability to lose weight due to her reliance on certain diabetic medicines. But in her case it wasn't viable because she has pre existing back, knee and ankle injury issues that would make the exercise regimine unworkable for her, and without it the lap band is not nearly effective.

 

[bobgeorge]

Well, now they can get Brady on the stand under oath and throw some baby questions at him

Objection: Irrelevance

Bob G

 

[psychoPat]

By pursuing this case
which could have been within hours of acquittal
... Weis deprives the public of the medical services of the physician defendants
for another entire trial cycle.
For this he loses my esteem and goodwill.

Stomach surgery is risky. Duh. Didn't your mother ever tell you that, Charlie?
Hospitals are lethal environments. Duh. Hasn't Hannah told you that, Charlie?

The almost unrestrained assault of part of the legal profession
upon all of the medical profession
does not merely raise the cost of medical attention for all of us,
but actually has driven many a practising physician to quit medicine
... thereby reducing the availability of medical attention
at any price.

Next time you need a doctor ... call a lawyer.

 

[Armen Da Pats Fan]

I heard the mistrial was due to Charlie eating defense exhibit A, a dozen Krispy Kreme donuts...