re: Greg Brooks Jr's attorney reacts to BK rebuttal:

quote:

---

And while I agree the initial misdiagnoses does not warrant malpractice or negligence in itself, I do think there will be people that view multiple episodes without seeing a team physician and being treated and diagnosed by trainers as negligent.

---

And that right there is the heart of the problem.
The very fact that there may be people who could be persuaded to agree with a malpractice or negligence diagnosis - regardless of fact - shows that the system simply sucks.

I know, "hate the game not the player". But the game as it now stands sucks - something bad happens to you? Must be someone else's fault, and that someone else must pay. Either prove they're responsible or make their lives so miserable that they pay you to go away.

Politics, economics, left, right, black, white, it doesn't matter. Today's victim and grievance culture in the US exists at every strata and in every group of people you can name.

I don't hate the players, I hate the game. But in this case, I also hate the lawyers who are foisting the game on every single desperate person they can find in the hopes that they might - MIGHT - find enough ignorant people that can be convinced to agree with them, facts be damned.

And this case, at least from the outside looking in, would appear to be the poster child for my perspective.

Again, JMO from a grumpy old man.

quote:

---

If you go to the ER with these symptoms, the first thing they do is a CT scan of your brain. If it’s true he went misdiagnosed for around 40 days, swing and a miss by the medical staff. Not a good look.

---

Are you a doctor? Not trying to pick a fight, but are you expressing an opinion or fact?

My dad was an ER/Trauma surgeon for decades, and I spent many many evenings keeping him company in the ER. I'm not a doc, but even with that perspective I'm not convinced that he would have sent someone coming in complaining of vertigo immediately for a CT - especially in today's era of insurance cost controls.

My opinion - based on indirect experience with my Dad - is that Greg would have had an equal chance of being sent home with a referral to a neurologist as he would have had of getting an immediate CT - depending on his symptoms and how they were perceived at the time. The fact is I don't know what he would have done because I'm not a doctor, and even if I was I wasn't there. I don't know what symptoms were communicated, observed or described by the patient. Nor does anyone else - the only "information" we have is what's been alleged in the lawsuit.

And - again - don't forget that we're talking 40 days from symptoms to brain surgery. In any universe that's exceedingly speedy medical care.

So, yeah, it's not a "good look", but that's only due to the PR mud-slinging campaign of the lawyer, not due to any facts that have been expressly stated and confirmed.

Personally, I'll wait to see if any such facts actually come out in actual court. My guess, though, is that the lawyer convinced the family that it would never get that far and that LSU would settle the case.

Time will tell if I guessed wisely or poorly....

quote:

---

You just called me ignorant then proved my point, OLOL still contracted the surgery.

---

I'll call you ignorant, but not in a pejorative way. You simply don't understand how modern medicine is practiced in the US.

It's rare these days for medical institutions (hospitals, teaching facilities, etc) to have full-time docs as employees. In most cases, a facility will decide what type of care they want to provide, what resources are needed to provide that care, and THEN they decide how best to acquire those resources.

For specialty fields, most of the docs belong to consulting medical groups that contract out services to these facilities. Have you had surgery lately? If so, did every single charge you (or your insurance)_pay for come from the hospital? Probably not. You probably got bills from a bunch of individual companies that participated in your care.

Sometimes, those relationships are obvious (like getting a bill from a separate anesthesia group for services provided during your care). Sometimes they're less obvious, like when a doc on contract to the hospital is acting as a representative of the hospital during your care (as was the case, I believe, with Greg Brooks).

Is it a perfect system? No, it sucks. And it drives up the cost of care immensely. But just because the system sucks doesn't mean that the care you receive from the system ALSO sucks.

So, yes, your ignorance is showing. I'm not trying to berate you for it, but at least admit that you don't really understand how these things work, and that you're assuming the hospital did something shady and is now at fault for providing substandard care.

The level of care provided is definitely a consideration in the lawsuit. But the fact that the surgeon was on contract to the hospital plays no part in whether or not the level of care was adequate. That's on the doc, and on the hospital if they knowingly retained a doc that wasn't qualified to do the work.

Which will all come out in the trial. Oh wait, what if there ISN'T a trial and someone (wink) is simply trying to insinuate as much demeaning crap as possible to force a settlement.

Ugh. It shouldn't have to be this way, but it is.

Peace, my friend.

quote:

---

And yes, I do have bias and animosity toward this group. We sat around and waited far too long between the first and second surgeries. I’m not saying she wouldn’t have succumbed had they done something sooner but I’m convinced the lack of urgency to treat her diminished her quality of life following the first surgery where they elected to be minimally invasive and not take more of the tumor.

---

I'm sorry to hear that. My father-in-law passed from brain cancer, and I can understand the anger and frustration that can come out of such horrible circumstances.

But, fair question for your situation: was the delay in the second surgery in your case because the docs wouldn't do it, didn't see the need, or because insurance wouldn't pay for it?

I can see both valid and invalid justifications from both the doc's and the insurance company perspectives, but that doesn't make it any easier on those affected by cancer (including those of us that love the folks suffering with that horrible disease).

I can only speak for myself, but with my FIL the docs said that surgery would only prolong his life by months, but those months wouldn't have any quality of life to them. They'd simply be forcing him to endure the disease until it won anyway. We asked if they'd go ahead and do it anyway, and the insurance company said no.

Who was right and who was wrong in that circumstance? We'll never know, but whomever you feel is 'right' is probably also wrong from someone else's point of view.

Again, cancer just plain sucks. And I sympathize with your pain. But, if you can, step back for just a moment and try to look at this particular situation from outside the pain and bias of your own experience.

Just a suggestion. Peace, brother.

quote:

---

I can guarantee that when LSU received the letter of representation contact was told to immediately stop

---

Either BK's been there by his side throughout this ordeal, or LSU's attorneys made him stay away. Both things can't be true.

The truth is probably somewhere between those two, but I don't know why BK didn't express that.

(no message)

quote:

---

What? Brian Kelly was by his side during and after the surgery until attorneys got involved

---

Brooks had surgery in late September. He left BR for further treatment around the tenth of October.

The coach didn’t go to St. Jude with him do he could have physically been at his side.

As best I can tell Brooks was in bad shape. He had numerous strokes during surgery. Was he lucid when he left BR? Was he able to converse with visitors? I don’t know, but it appears there are lot of facts not in evidence that the public doesn’t know.

I read that Brooks had to have a second surgery in Memphis. Was this routine? How fit was Brooks then?

There’s a lot to this sad story that needs to be heard before people jump to conclusions. Meanwhile many have made up their minds simply because they don’t like the coach, or they don’t like doctors, or they don’t like attorneys.

quote:

---

But, he didn't say this. He didn't mention lawyers telling him not to contact Brooks at all. I'm simply asking why. It would have been a much better, cleaner statement.

---

Because it's given!

My God!

quote:

---

Look, I've been an LSU homer my entire life. Was there for the 03, 07, 19 natties. Rushed the field after UF 97. But some of y'all are asking us to throw logic and reason out the window. BK's statement was clear as mud. "There by Greg's side" can easily be interpreted as physically there. "Through this ordeal" can easily be interpreted as from first symptoms up to now. I mean, based on Brooks' current physical condition does the ordeal look over to you?

---

Exactly right. You can interpret things different ways, but that doesn’t mean you will get the right answer.