Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

psychiatrist-comments

Expand Messages
  • Jurydoctor@aol.com
    Kind of like a fireman going into a house fire only to fond that the hose hasn t been charged and no water comes out when he needs it to.
    Message 1 of 1 , May 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Kind of like a fireman going into a house fire only to fond that the hose
      hasn't been charged and no water comes out when he needs it to.
      _______________________
      There is no defense. They're
      obligated to follow federal law. There
      should be guidelines in the jail manual that cover
      that situation. THe other argument is that just
      because the other shrinks didn't object doesn't make
      it right.
      _______________________
      I think the shrink should have KNOWN better,
      especially with the nurse warning him.

      However, the jail was obligated to provide a safe
      workplace and I'd pound the OSHA General Duty Clause
      drum - employer's obligation to provide a safe
      workplace, employee's obligation to follow the rules
      and work in a safe manner. My argument would be that
      the doc's stupidity was less important than the facts
      that

      A. the jail didn't provide a safe workplace and/or
      B. the jail didn't have appropriate safety rules for
      the shrink to follow.

      (Really, the doc would still be alive if he had used a
      grain of common sense, but they don't teach you that
      in psychiatry school...) OSHA General Duty Clause
      would be my legal story and I'd stick to it... :) :)

      You don't have to be in federal court to invoke
      federal law, where state law is silent, to establish
      liability. If the state has a state version of OSHA,
      so much the better. Wish we had a bit more time for an
      OSHA specialist to inspect the site and offer an
      opinion. There was a personal injury case against
      Huntsville Hospital a few years ago, litigated
      similarly.
      ------------------------------------
      OSHA: psychiatrist murdered at jail

      That's why i was interested in seeing if OSHA had any thoughts on this, as it
      would seem to be something they would deal with...


      ________________________
      In spite of warning, Doc asked to be alone, failed to establish
      rapport, was leaving room, inmate strangled him from behind, Doc did
      not cry out, no observer would have had time or sufficient warning to
      save him.

      _______________________
      Sounds to me like they're going for "plausible deniability", as the nurse
      wasn't DOC, but private, if i'm not mistaken....
      __________________________________
      construction workers

      I think it depends really. A construction worker who comes to a site
      without a hard hat is an idiot. But at the same time, shouldn't he
      reasonably expect his employer to provide other safety mechanisms,
      like harnasses for exterior wall and roof work, for example, or
      scaffolding and railing for temporary sites? He SHOULD be held
      responsible for a basic thing like his hard hat, but should he REALLY
      be respobsible for ensuring his employer has provided a safe workplace
      to begin with?

      And thats where I land here. Perhaps I am out of touch with the
      world, but this is the FIRST time I have ever heard someone suggest
      that a body alarm is standard equipment for a psychiatrist. Rather,
      its always seemed obvious to me that if a psychiatrist is called into
      a situation to evaluate a dangerous offender, then the people in
      charge of the facility have taken ALL necessary precautions. I just
      can't take the onus off the facility ... whatever they say now, if a

      nurse informed the psychiatrist he was potentially dangerous, the
      facility KNEW his state before they sent the doctor in. Therefore,
      they are responsible for ensuring the interview was in a safe room,
      and the doctor can reasonably assume that those precautions were
      taken, or rather, he should have been able to assume that.

      _________________________________________
      Actually, I would think that regardless of whether they knew of the
      inmates dangerous propensities beforehand, the DOC should be responsible
      for providing BASIC safeguards for EVERY encounter between an inmate and
      visitor, professional or otherwise. If there was prior knowledge of
      specific danger then additional precautions would be warranted, but even
      the basics were missing from this situation. Knowledge on their part of
      the person in particular really shouldn't play much part in this, imo,
      now that I think about it.
      ________________________
      article

      These folks really should have settled. "The incident about which
      the plaintiff complains was totally unforeseeable…" (Uh huh,
      sure. "Totally unforeseeable" the day pigs start enlisting for
      fighter pilot training, maybe. Until then, forget it!)


      --- wrote:
      > Trial date set for lawsuit against sheriff in death of
      psychiatrist
      > By CHRIS W. COLBY, cwcolby@n...
      > April 29, 2005
      > The lawsuit alleging the Collier County Sheriff's Office was
      negligent in the
      > 2001 strangling death of Bonita Springs psychiatrist Dr. David
      Hoyer inside
      > the jail now has a firm trial date.
      > U.S. District Judge John E. Steele set May 9 to hear the wrongful
      death
      > lawsuit Hoyer's widow, Rae, filed in 2002 against the Sheriff's
      Office. Six jurors
      > will decide the trial in a federal courtroom in Fort Myers.
      > "The judge is picking the jury, and we're going to be trying it
      that entire
      > week, "said David Gaspari, a Palm Beach attorney representing
      Hoyer.
      > Gaspari said the case is unlikely to settle. The issue never went
      before a
      > mediator, who could have heard both sides' arguments, issued a
      ruling in favor
      > of either and proposed a monetary settlement.
      > Fort Lauderdale attorney Bruce Jolly, representing the Sheriff's
      Office, was
      > unavailable for comment Wednesday on the trial date, set the day
      before by
      > Steele.
      > The Sheriff's Office, in court papers, has denied responsibility
      for the
      > slaying of David Hoyer, 57.
      > Hoyer was attacked and strangled by inmate Rodrigus Patten during
      a mental
      > competency evaluation Jan. 3, 2001.
      > The interview took place in a frequently used, soundproof
      interview room.
      > Court records show Patten wasn't handcuffed or shackled, and the
      room wasn't
      > within the field of vision of any guards. Gaspari has said Hoyer
      was never told of
      > an alarm panel on the wall behind him.
      > Patten was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life
      in prison
      > Jan. 21.
      > The suit alleges the Sheriff's Office â€" as the agency in charge
      of operating
      > and maintaining the jail â€" was negligent in "causing or
      contributing to the
      > death of" Hoyer.
      > The lawsuit doesn't seek a specific dollar amount for damages.
      However, it
      > was moved from state to federal court last year so Florida's
      $100,000 cap on
      > liability damages for public agencies wouldn't apply if Hoyer wins
      the trial.
      > The suit moved after Gaspari added a federal claim alleging the
      agency
      > violated her husband's civil rights.
      > Deputies found Hoyer collapsed in the room after Patten alerted
      them Hoyer
      > may have had a heart attack. He died three days later at Naples
      Community
      > Hospital. An autopsy revealed he died of manual strangulation.
      > Court records related to Patten's criminal case say Hoyer was told
      Patten had
      > an antisocial personality disorder and was considered extremely
      dangerous.
      > However, the doctor never requested any restraints for Patten.
      > The defense argued the Sheriff's Office "would assert that the
      incident about
      > which the plaintiff complains was totally unforeseeable to this
      defendant,
      > and therefore this defendant had no opportunity to take steps to
      prevent (the
      > death of Hoyer)."

      __________________________________________

      This is not a slam dunk, but a complex case where several interplayin factors
      are involved.

      1) This was a county jail, and my impression was that the inmate was on
      remand. not yet convicted.
      It appears that the inmate was not handcuffed or shackled, as he would be if
      convicyed.

      However, when I visited a client on Florida'a death row, the man was
      handcuffed and shackled
      until I requested that the shackles be removed. We were in a lawyer's
      visiting room for about
      four hours, with the guards looking into the the room through the glass door
      every fre minutes.

      It also appears that no evaluation was made of this inmate by a competent
      person before this
      shrink made his visit. It is not known what happened in that visiting room
      that led up tothe
      shrink's death, and how the inmate got into the hall. Negligence on the jail
      staff.

      2) If this inmate is declared incompetent or insane, he cannot be held
      accountable; The jail
      staff has some responsibity in not protecting the shrink even in the most
      rudimentary manner. The
      attending nurse was concerned, and voiced her concern to the shrink, who
      foolhardedly was was
      unprepared to deal with an attack. He has to be accountable for his casual
      attitude.

      3) If the law in the state permits, it can be treated a a Worker's
      Compensation case, as well as a
      section 1983 wrongful death case. Strategic decisions should determine how
      to proceed.

      There is a weak defense, but a question of jurisdiction, and the way the
      courts will treat the
      mitigating factorsby the shrink. The right court can mean the difference
      between winning big
      bucks or a minimum sum.
      ____________________________
      All doors to the outside open out, all doors inside open in. Check all the
      bedroom and bathroom doors in your house.
      This is so you can break into the room.
      ________________________
      The cockpit getting stormed because the doors are not secure ... (not
      re-inforced, no katy bar lock) ... just a flimsy excuse of a door that is more for
      show and convenience than it is for security. Think pre-9/11 cockpits.

      Sorry, that is all I can think of :(
      _______________________
      Don't know, but if I am on the jury, I am finding "assumption of risk".....
      .. your guy signed a contract and evidently did not specify specifics for
      his own protection, he was aware of the dangers (or should have been), he
      should have read the case history and familiarized himself with the inmates
      peculiarities. By contract...... the doc was an employee and should have
      familiarized himself with the layout of the premises and what was or was not
      available for his safety ..........I would say that he assumed the risk and
      placed himself in harms way. Should the Sheriff kept a close look out or
      posted an officer in the room with the inmate and doc........... arguably,
      but ultimately, the doc set the scene by his own negligence.


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.