Damn subpoena! THIS is why people hate lawyers! - Page 2

Tobra · Tobra's Garage

Quote:

Originally posted by 930addict
That's strange. A doctor friend of ours charges for services such as this. I don't know the details but I know for a fact that he charges for his time. You may want to look into it further.

That only applies for expert witnesses. If you are not a party to the lawsuit, I do not believe they can compel you to appear. Your records should be sufficient, I would fight it, and let them know in writing that you fully intend to be reimbursed for your time, either by them voluntarily, or by them with a court compelling them to do so.

That is what I did on a case where they were trying to get me to go to Texas. My stupid/lazy retained by the insurance company attorney did not do anything for about a year. I told the guy our opponent had better get a judgement against me, or he was going to get his sorry self sued for about $5000, plus whatever it cost me to travel there and pay for lodging.

Dropped me from the suit within 24 hours, of course my idiot attroney did not notify me about it, I called him a week later to finalize arrangements to meet at his office. He says, "You haven't heard? You were dropped from that last week" Dumbass

cashflyer · 07-21-2006, 06:28 AM

I would put the mold lady on a doctors "black list". But then there's that hypocritical oath to consider.

legion · 07-21-2006, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john_cramer
Lawyers don't sue, plaintiffs sue.

Then how come so many lawyers run advertisements in newspapers shopping for plaintiffs?

gaijindabe · 07-21-2006, 08:15 AM

….ah yes, I remember her, in my professional opinion a hypochondriac and emotionally unstable…

Rodeo · 07-21-2006, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by john_cramer
***When that kind of crap stops happening (which it never will) then there will be no more need for legal dispute resolution, and therefore, no more lawyers.***

Good point, but not entirely true.

With no lawyers and no system of justice, we could always have gunfights to settle disputes, or if someone screwed you in business, you could go slaughter him and his entire family, or we could settle matters with arm-wrestling, or darts maybe.

Lawyers and courts can be pretty miserable, but the system of jurisprudence we have is better than any of the alternatives.

Moses · 07-21-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

Lawyers and courts can be pretty miserable, but the system of jurisprudence we have is better than any of the alternatives.

That's a poor defense of a broken system; "Look! It could be worse!" Also, I would gladly trade our tort system for the one in the U.K.

My complaint is simple; I am legally compelled to lose a days work because a lawyer DIDN'T DO HIS JOB! That's just wrong.

Nathans_Dad · Nathans_Dad's Garage

I think that our legal system could make a giant leap towards fixing itself by implementing one simple concept.

Loser pays.

Of course the trial lawyers will never allow that to happen.

Moses · 07-21-2006, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad

Loser pays.

+1

pbs911 · pbs911's Garage

Moses, you can think of it as karma. You are chosen to represent the countless number of doctors who have wasted hours and hours of patients' time while waiting in the waiting room to see their doctor even though they had a scheduled appointment.

Rodeo · 07-21-2006, 11:01 AM

Loser pays does nothing to help Moses with his situation.

My defense is not "look, it could be worse." My defense is that our system of jurisprudence has unavoidable drawbacks, all of which are preferable to the drawbacks of every other dispute resolution mechanism conceived by man.

You're a witness with potentially relevant evidence to an ongoing dispute. By participating in a system whereby parties can peacefully resolve their disputes, you contribute to the common good. You'd lose work if you had jury duty too, I just don't think you'd be complaining quite as loudly.

Think of it as your civic duty. If you ever need a third-party witness to press YOUR case, you'll be glad you didn't throw out the entire subpoena process to save a day's pay.

Dottore · 07-21-2006, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

My defense is not "look, it could be worse." My defense is that our system of jurisprudence has unavoidable drawbacks, all of which are preferable to the drawbacks of every other dispute resolution mechanism conceived by man.

Dottore · 07-21-2006, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo

My defense is not "look, it could be worse." My defense is that our system of jurisprudence has unavoidable drawbacks, all of which are preferable to the drawbacks of every other dispute resolution mechanism conceived by man.

This, with respect, is wishful thinking. Just about any Commonwealth country (UK, Canada, Australia etc) has a better dispute resolution system than the US courts, and the same is true for just about any European nation you care to name.

US tort awards are far too high, and litigation is far too expensive. The fact that there is no concept of "loser pays" encourages entirely speculative suits that can be horrendously expensive.

No, there are better systems. Indeed one of the key themes heard at IBA (International Bar Association) Meetings these days is how other nations can avoid the pitfalls of the US judicial system.

Rodeo · 07-21-2006, 11:41 AM

I didn't mean the US System, I meant the system of English jurisprudence, upon which ours is based.

Rodeo · 07-21-2006, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Dottore
This, with respect, is wishful thinking. Just about any Commonwealth country (UK, Canada, Australia etc) has a better dispute resolution system than the US courts, and the same is true for just about any European nation you care to name.

I'll name France.

And Italy.

And Spain.

I Moses ever got caught up in a judicial proceeding in one of those countries, he'd be longing for the good ol' USA

And why does everything go back to "tort reform?" I mean, really! Moses is complaining about a subpoena served on him, maybe because he has relevant evidence in an ongoing dispute, maybe because the lawyer that drafted the subpoena is a lazy ass with no consideration for anyone else's time.

But what does "tort reform" have to do with this?

EdT82SC · 07-21-2006, 11:55 AM

A doctor friend of mine who is located in Santa Ana, CA charges $400/hr + costs for stuff like this. He made $1200 last month for 3 hours of reviewing his records, travel time, and being deposed.

Moses · 07-21-2006, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by EdT82SC
A doctor friend of mine who is located in Santa Ana, CA charges $400/hr + costs for stuff like this. He made $1200 last month for 3 hours of reviewing his records, travel time, and being deposed.

I wasn't deposed. I was issued a subpoena. Different beast.

Dottore · 07-21-2006, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Rodeo
I'll name France.

And Italy.

And Spain.

But what does "tort reform" have to do with this?

Tort reform has nothing to do with this. You are quite right. But I was responding to the rather rash statement that I quoted.

I could debate the pros and cons of litigating in any of the three named countries vs the US - but this would be a long debate. Much depends on the court and the issue and the parties involved. If I am sued for eg. sexual harrassment, or in tort for just about anything - I believe the proceedings would be fairer (in the ordinary sense of that word) in any of the three countries you have named than it would be in the US.

But I don't want to hijack this thread.

greglepore · 07-21-2006, 01:11 PM

Litigation atty here. In our state, you cannot compel a physician to appear in his professional capacity unless you agree to pay him his usual and customary charge (usually at least 4k a day here). Second, you can move for a protective order. Third, there are penalties for "vexatious conduct" ie you told them you had no info, they acknowledged, and yet are still going to jerk you around.

Have a lawyer friend (or do it yourself) write a letter indicating that you'll appear once your customary fee of x,xxx is tendered in certified funds. Further, advise that you did not treat the plaintiff relative to her condition at issue, and that you will seek sanctions if they continue to harass you.

In Pennsylvania, doctors almost never testify live, almost always on video.

EdT82SC · 07-21-2006, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Moses
I wasn't deposed. I was issued a subpoena. Different beast.

My friend was subpoenaed. He told the lawyer who subpoenaed him his price. The lawyer sent no money. He showed up, and said before he said a word or even reviwed the medical records he needed to be paid. He actually made the lawyer go to his bank, and get cash to pay him. He wouldn't take a check after the way the lawyer behaved. And the lawyer did it. Part of the $1200 was the time he waited for the guy to go to the bank. Then he made the lawyer wait while he reviewed the records. Don't take $hit from these guys.

fastpat · 07-21-2006, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by john_cramer
All right Saw-Bones, I'm going to break my usual rule and offer suggestions as to what you might do. Discaimer: I'm not admitted in California and I don't know their civil procedure rules. You should contact a qualified lawyer who IS admitted in California to help you do the following:

1) Object to the subpoena in writing on the basis you have outlined above; and

2) Find out what California allows in terms of reimbursement for your time and travel expenses to appear at the time and place stated in the Subpoena. The authorization for that is in the California Civil Practice code, as follows

Under no circumstances should you ignore this Subpoena or fail to follow its instructions to the letter. It is, like it or not, an order of the Court, and failure to do as you have been commanded (not requested, commanded) will place you in Contempt of Court which will only make things worse. See your attorney for details.

And don't even think about taking the advice of some here to get cute with the content of your testimony.

I am not sure you have a winner, anyway, because if I were the Plaintiff's attorney, her medical condition at the time you examined her, and the records of that care encounter, to which the information contained therein she is legally entitled, may be relevant to establishing her baseline physical condition prior to the attack of the killer mold. So that's how you might actually be relevant.

It's all the cost of doing business, Doc. I know it sucks, but if the situation were different, and you were actually a PARTY to the litigation, I can guaran-damn-tee that you'd be firing out Subpoenas and motions to produce documents like a gatling gun. The discovery process should not be misused, and sanctions are available for its misuse, and your lawyer can advise you as to their availability in your particular situation.

Good luck and remember: lawyers don't sue, plaintiffs sue. I'd like to see the lawyer-bashers refuse to utilize counsel when they get popped for a DUI.

This is the best advice you've yet received. I'd take it to heart if I were you, Moses.