What the Doctor Saw | Overlawyered | 2.10.05
“The court system through the eyes of a surgeon sued for malpractice/The jury needed just 15 minutes to end the case, but first orthopedist Stephen M. McCollam had to live under its cloud for four years.” …
What the Doctor Saw (PDF) | Daily Report | 1.31.05
“Here he is asking me about his neck and his shoulder—sharing with me his diagnosis, and he may be having some increased pain lately, and [asking] what could it be,” McCollam says. “I mean how many lawyers have asked the doctors they’re suing, in a court of law, for offhand kind of low-key medical advice, and how many doctors actually give it?”
The Story Behind the Doctor’s Story | Daily Report | 2.7.05
S. Richard Gard Jr.
Editor and PublisherLast Monday’s story, “What the Doctor Saw” (Daily Report, Jan. 31, 2005), has drawn strong reaction. Some readers have questioned why we devoted so much coverage to a defendant-doctor’s perspective of a malpractice trial, why the story appeared when it did and how Georgia state senators came to have copies on their desks at the time of a vote to change the tort laws. …
Anyone familiar with the topic knows that the tort debate is highly charged and will be for some time. We have published coverage on many aspects of this issue on many occasions and will continue to do so.
As to our “agenda,” it remains the same: to fulfill our journalistic mission by reporting fully, fairly, accurately and intelligently on the intersection of law and society from many perspectives.
The whole article is excellent. Posted above is just one of many ironies in the med-mal process.
