Surgeons Plus Burnout Equals Medical Malpractice
We should not be surprised that surgeons, like everyone else, suffer from burnout and depression, according to a new study reported in The Annals of Surgery. But we should be surprised, and alarmed, by the manner in which the burnout and depression affects patient care.
In this survey of 7,905 U.S. surgeons, almost 9% acknowledged having made a major error during the three months prior to the taking of the survey. That is unsettling enough on its own. But these were only the self-reported errors. Imagine what the real numbers are.
This should serve as a reminder to the so-called tort reformers that serious medical errors remain a serious problem. Thus far, none of the ideas proposed by tort “reformers” have addressed the root cause of the medical malpractice lawsuits that they constantly decry–medical errors that ruin or end patients’ lives. Isn’t it time that their thinking evolved?
Why HP and Lawyers Don’t Mix
The simple answer is: lawyers actually have work to do. Often, that is why they buy computers. Therefore, lawyers who want to get work done must buy computers that work. The logic is simple. But of course, even the best products break now and again. That’s why there are repair people, and in the world of computers, tech service workers, a special breed of customer service employees, who are supposed to help resolve your problem. It is often at this juncture, when the computer customer has a technical issue, that business relationships are cemented, or forever broken. Unfortunately, Hewlett Packard has not learned this lesson just yet, based on my experience (and that of many others, if you search online).
My HP Mini netbook began not working properly about 6 weeks ago. Among other things, the memory filled up to the point that it slowed internet access, and computer function in general, despite my frequent deleting of unneeded programs and files. Then, I lost the intenet connection entirely. Among the many clueless folks in India or Pakistan that I spoke with, and barely understood, one instructed me to purchase a media pocket drive to transfer excess files to. Spent the money, set it up, and it failed to address the problem. The next tech person told me the first one had been wrong, and I spent another 3-4 hours on the phone without solving the problem. By this point, I had been on the phone for about 10 hours, spread out over a few days, and spent $100.00 for an HP product I never needed, and still had a broken computer.
After more wasted time and frustration, yet another tech person told me that I needed to delete everything from my computer, and re-install everything, with the 3 discs that they’d be sending me in the mail. I waited a few more days, got the discs, did what was suggested, and the computer remained just as broken.
Several hours of frustration on the phone with these incompetents later, I was told I’d have to send the computer to their TX repair facility. Several days later, I received the FedEx box in which to place it. It went to TX, and came back with a slip saying the hard drive had been replaced. Can you guess what happened when I tried to use it? That’s right. Still broken.
By this point, I had been without the ability to use the computer I’d purchased for a good 5 weeks, and things were not looking very promising with HP’s “help.” I asked for either my money back, or a new computer, as I had already wasted untold days of frustration attempting, in good faith, to have my computer–still under warranty–fixed.
Unfortunately, HP’s policy is that my computer has to have been to TX for repair 3 times before they will take such a step. (Getting the picture here? Not exactly bending over backwards for the customer.)
As I sit here typing, I am waiting for the second FedEx box to take my computer back to TX, and having fantasies about renting a steamroller and running over my computer, many times, instead, since that will probably be equally useful in terms of the repair process.
Yesterday, after getting nowhere with the “Quality Case Manager” I’d been assigned to, I asked for the phone number to the president of the company, and called it. When I reached the Executive Suite, and asked to speak with the President, I was literally told (but very sweetly) “that’s not an option.”
And so it goes on. I will likely abandon any further attempts to fix this product, because it is just not worth the time and effort any longer.
And the bottom line is, I need a computer that works, and a company that will stand behind it when it doesn’t. HP does not fit the bill. You have fair warning.
New York Personal Injury Case Law Update
Ahhhh! Winter! That magical time when fresh snow makes everything look clean for a moment, we’re all taken back to childhood memories of carefree snow days , and…oh, yeah, the time of year when people fall on icy surfaces and get hurt. As we are approaching that season, it is fitting that the Appellate Division, Second Dept. issued a new decision involving just such an accident, which happened in the neighborhood nextdoor to mine. In Groninger v. Village of Mamaroneck, NY Slip Op 08178 (2d Dept. 2009), decided November 10, 2009, plaintiff slipped, fell and injured herself on ice in one of the Village’s municipal parking lots. When she sued the Village, claiming that it had negligently failed to address the icy condition responsible for her accident, the Village move for summary judgment dismissal, based on the lack of prior written notice mandated by CPLR 9804 and the Village Law.
In affirming the lower court’s granting of the Village’s motion to dismiss, the Second Dept. found that the prior written notice requirement applied to municipal parking lots, and that plaintiff failed to show the applicability of either of two exceptions to the written notice requirement: (1) that the Village affirmatively created the condition through negligence that immediately resulted in danger; or (2) that a special use resulted in a special benefit to the Village.
Because she could not defeat the prior written notice requirement, Ms. Groninger’s case was dismissed.
The plaintiff fared better in Bastien v. New York City Transit Authority, Slip Op 08167 (2d Dept. 2009), also decided November 10, 2009. He was beaten and stabbed while riding a City bus, and later brought a negligence action against the NYCTA and the driver, who did nothing to help plaintiff during the assault, failing to even call for help. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissal, establishing their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, by showing that there was no special relationship to plaintiff. However, only a “triable issue of fact” is needed to defeat such a motion, and plaintiff had an effective one in his quiver. He argued that the bus operator’s failure to call for emergency assistance in a timely manner from his position of safety was a proximate cause of his injuries. The lower court found that plaintiff’s argument did indeed raise a triable issue of fact, and noted that if plaintiff were to prove such a scenario, he could recover for his injuries under an exception to the special relationship requirement.
The lower court properly denied the defendants’ summary judgment motion, as the Second Dept. affirmed, and Mr. Bastien will be able to take his case to trial.