Forgot your password?
Type your email address below and click the sign up button to create an account.
As usual the whole story is not being released here. I just love how biased VicAd is. Chandna's group wanted their own CV surgeon ( one they contracted with) of which had questionable skills. This guy just couldn't meet the criteria that CMC had set. On at least one occasion, this surgeon performed a CABG, jumped on his pqlane on flew to another destination and had started on some other poor soul. The patient here (at DeTar) developed some complications that one of the CV surgeons here had to correct otherwise that patient could have had a very poor outsom.. There was also a trend of high infection rates in the paients performed by this surgeon which left the local surgeons to deal with also.
The cardiologists here knew about the ineptitude of this surgeon but chose to continue to use him without regard to the best interest of their patients.
In addition, at least one of the cardiologst was not credentialed to perform conscious sedation but ordered it anyway.
Wasn't the initial lawsuit in late February 2010? It makes sense that the only evidence the court of appeals would have considered was from back then. When will all the other evidence come out? I can hardly wait for the trial to start in Victoria. Based on this story and the previous one about Citizen's Medical Center being held in Contempt of court, it sounds like things are not going too well for Citizens Medical Center. The hospital continues to lose in the trial court. I am sure that since the cardiologists' lawyers have now been able to interview David Brown and all his cronies about their misconduct, there is a ton of additional evidence that will come out to support the claims of the 3 cardiologists. Looks like that is what Judge Jack found. No wonder, Citizens Medical Center and the Board members are appealing the Judge's findings-that is probably the only way for them to keep things the way they are. By appealing, is this Citizens Medical Center stategic plan to delay the trial?
The suit alleged causes of action for violations of the Cardiologists’ substantive due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, violations of the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, and civil conspiracy. The district court granted the TRO, expressly predicating the grant only on the Cardiologists’ substantive due process claim.
Action today by the appellate court confirms that the due process claim does not have a reasonable chance of prevailing. The Cardiologists are limited to proving a conspiracy or demonstrating civil rico, which are, on their face, preposterous.
The only real surprise is the sharpness used by the appellate court in refuting the analysis of the disctrict court. It is seldom that plain errors of law are found in the workings of the district court and it indicates clear unhappiness in the original grant of the TRO. If the sharpness continues through the appellate court's review of the second appeal, it should be time for the cardiologists to abandon all hope of prevailing on their claims.