- The prosecution rests. (gasps)
- That's it, on that? He's a plaintiff's lawyer. He's trying to get damages on behalf of his client the snowboarder. - Two script errors here, major. - That's like getting your name wrong. (laughs) (playful music) Hey, Legal Eagles, by popular demand, I'm finally tackling a medical drama that involves malpractice, but to do that, I think I'm going to need
a medical consultation. Doctor.
(twinkles) We're ready for surgery. Let's dig in. (playful music) - Are we losing this case? - It's too early to panic. We haven't presented our side yet. - There she is. - You haven't presented anything. - Where was his opening statement? - Where was this opening statement? Where were all the
questions that he was asking of the other witnesses? - Don't they, like after the witness presents for the plaintiff, right away the defense
gets to speak to them? - Yes, well, there's two ways
of doing an opening statement. You can do what's called
reserving the opening statement, where instead of giving your
opening statement immediately after the plaintiff, you
wait until the plaintiff has presented their whole case and then at the start of your case, then you give your own opening statement. - Oh, okay. - And there are strategic
reasons why you might do that. In a case like this, you would 100%-- - [Dr. Mike] Want to go right after. - Get right in there,
explain all the things that the plaintiff did not explain to you, and get your theme out
there, which is that this is a bad thing that
happened to a good kid. It's not a matter of medical negligence. It's just that all of these complications that no one could have foreseen happened, caused this whole cascade of things. But the doctors did everything right. - His legs were black. I knew it wasn't good. They cut them off that night. - So this is the plaintiff's girlfriend. She would have been a great
witness to start things off. - Telling the story, emotional, sad. - No medical stuff whatsoever, and whatever she witnessed firsthand, which is going to be
colored by a layperson. It's going to seem really
horrible based on what she saw. That would be a great way
to get your story out there. - Did you have any
indication that Dr. Torres was even worried about
something like amputation? I mean, did she ever mentioned
that it might be even a risk? - [Girlfriend] No. She
was worried about it. She was worried about what it
would do to her reputation. - What is she talking about? - [Lawyer] Why would you say that? - I have no idea. - I heard her talking in the hallway. She didn't know I could hear her. - [Lawyer] What did she say?
(tense music) - She said "I can't be the doctor who turns an Olympic
athlete into a doorstop." - Is that hearsay? That
sounds hearsay-ish. - That is a, that is exactly
an example of hearsay. However, there is an
exception to the hearsay rule in the federal rules that would be 801d2, federal rules of evidence, that is an admission by a party opponent. So this is the plaintiff
using the statement of the defendant against them. Arguably, this is an
admission by a party opponent or a declaration against interest. It's also being used for
its non-hearsay value in terms of she's literally
turning someone into a doorstep which is incredibly un-PC. I can't believe they
included that in here, but also that she was
flustered, she was worried. She is partially admitting fault. So it sort of informs all
of her downstream actions. - Can you get off of that
thing for five seconds and look at this place? - Yeah, I know, hold on a second. I'm just, I'm following
up on that clinical trial in Germany using Peterson hip joints. I'm trying to get them
to send me their data. - Well, they're not
going to release anything until it's published. - Sometimes they will. It's called the pre-print publication. - Is that the kind of research
that an orthopedic surgeon would do before doing
surgery for the first time? Well, using a hip that
she's never used before? - It should be, (laughs) because you want to know
what the implications of using the joint would be,
what side effects patients had, especially if it's different than the research that already exists. - I would expect that a
surgeon at the top of her field would research clinical trials. She would examine whatever publications the manufacturer has put out. - It's not like there's
hundreds of studies that they have to go through. There's like a handful
that are good quality. So like two or three
studies that you go through and you know them inside out, you know what the complications are, and you present it to the patient getting them to understand
what the risks would be. And again, that's not the
core of the problem here. The core of the problem is how she acted after the procedure, so like,
that's the real issue here. I don't think the joint
is even the problem. - There, sent. - Oh, that's it? That's
how she does her research? Like, Oh, okay, now let's show me this. - I sent a text. - Yeah. - Try to explain that to the jury. You have to believe me,
I did everything I could. - Look at this text. I DMed the author. - That actually would've
come out in evidence. - [Dr. Mike] Really? - Oh yeah, there would
be so much discovery and document requests,
and you would absolutely look for electronic
documents, including emails, texts, anything that references
the hip, Travis Reed, the snowboarder, you'd ask for
all of that from the doctor. And it would have been turned
over to the other side. - So for example, the
plaintiff can request personal emails as well? - Oh, absolutely.
- Wow. - That's really the bread and butter of litigation these days. People are relatively smart
in terms of not saying things that they shouldn't say, or at least not having a record of it. People say all kinds of
crazy stuff in emails. - Hey Travis. - Hey. - You know, I'm thinking
about snowboarding. In fact, I've picked up a board, a Burton blunt, are you
familiar with that one? - [Travis] It's a good board. - No, you can't ask these questions. - There's better boards for beginners. What size shoe are you? - I'm a 13. - You might want to
look into an extra wide. - Object.
- Don't hang over too much. A little overhang's fine, but
too much is gonna cause drag. - [Lawyer] And drag's bad? - Objection, your honor.
Where is this going? - Objection, where is this going? That is not an objection recognized by the federal rules of evidence. You'd be objecting from
the very start of this. This is not relevant. I get it, you're trying
to humanize your client, but the way you would
do that is establishing the background that is actually relevant to his economic and non-economic damages. - A hundred percent. - He's not able to snowboard now, so the obvious form of damages would be the lost income that he
would have been able to make. And that would be a huge
part of this case too, in terms of disputing
whether he would even be able to snowboard in the future. Because remember he started out
this episode with arthritis, arthritis so severe that
he couldn't land the trick and he needed a replacement hip. That's one of the reasons
why you might bifurcate a trial like this, which
means that half of the trial is about establishing
liability, who was negligent, which parties were negligent,
doctor, hospital, et cetera? And then only once you have
established the relative fault. So you can have, this person
is responsible for 10%. This person's responsible for 50%. Once you've established that, then you would go forward into damages. And then there would be a huge battle where the defense would say,
"maybe we were negligent, but this poor kid was never going to be able to snowboard again anyway, therefore we don't owe damages in the form of his lost income." - Is it true that Dr. Torres
had never actually done an operation with this
kind of joint before? - Objection, speculation. He knows that because she told him. That's an example where
probably the hearsay wouldn't come in, it's sort of speculation as to whether that is in fact true. - True, okay. - That's true. - But you went ahead with it anyway? - She said she had done a lot of research. She said she was confident. - So you trusted her to use her expertise to advise you and to keep you safe, when in fact what you got was a botched surgery and infection. - This is a leading question,
an extremely leading question. - I mean, look at you now. - That's not a question. You don't get to pontificate
from the well of the court. The main thing is you have
to ask actual questions in an examination. - These aren't actual questions. - There's nothing there. (door slides) - I'm really interested to
see how she handles this, because I think situations
like this decide whether or not a patient is
actually going to continue. If you come in and you take
some of the fault yourself and you actually say "sorry," statistics show less likely
for a lawsuit to happen. - Interesting. - But doctors, I don't know if
this is like older training, an ego thing, what is it, but
they're afraid to say sorry and say "we made a mistake." And as a result, more, like
it looks worse to the patient, like the doctor doesn't care. They're not going to fix this. Other patients are going
to get hurt by this. Whereas if you apologize,
point out what you did wrong, point out what you learned,
how you're changing the system so it never happens again, less, it doesn't protect you obviously, but it gives that honesty to the patient where they're less likely
to proceed as litigation. - Well, I would assume
that doctors are worried about getting sued and admitting fault. So that is a reason why they wouldn't. - But isn't it interesting
that it's actually backwards? Something similar happens when
you're questioning patients. Something that med students
are always hesitant to ask is if patients are thinking
about committing suicide or hurting themselves, and students, I don't want to ask that. What if it actually leads them to do that? No such evidence. Asking that question
does not offend people. It does not cause more rates of suicide, and it's actually reassuring and you can get a lot of
information that could actually help you protect the patient
from committing suicide. - Yeah, I imagine that's
one of the reasons why empirical evidence-based
medicine is so important. - Exactly. - Because everyone has these hunches, but sometimes it's not
born out in the data. - Exactly. - It's Dr. Torres's fault. - Improper opinion. Objection, move to strike. - You feel very strongly about that. - It's not just a feeling. I know it, she told me. - [Lawyer] She admitted
that she was at fault? - [Travis] Yes, she did. - I'm curious about this. - [Travis] The day she cut off my legs, she came into my room, she'd been crying. She told me she was sorry. - Objection. It is illegal to use a physician's apology against them as evidence of guilt. - Your honor, this
isn't about the apology. This is about everything else
she said with the apology. - [Judge] I'll allow it. - Oh! - Okay, so big problems here. - Okay. I hope so. - It is in fact, the case
that there are about 40 states in the US that have what
are called "I'm sorry" laws, which as you just talked
about, allow the facilitation of doctors to apologize to a patient. In those states, it is illegal to use a doctor's apology against
them in court like this. There are limits to that though. If the doctor goes
further than apologizing into admitting fault,
then that is a statement that's not covered by the "I'm sorry" laws and can be admissible. - [Travis] She said if there was anyone to blame, it was her. She said this never should have happened. She said if there was any way she could change things, she would. - [Lawyer] Those were her exact words? - Yeah, I don't think that's
really admitting fault. - Yes they were.
(tense music) - The prosecution rests. (gasps)
- That's it? On that? - No, that's not the issue. He's the plaintiff's lawyer. The prosecution is a criminal thing. He's saying that he represents the state and is prosecuting someone
for criminal guilt. He's a plaintiff's lawyer. He's trying to get damages on behalf of his client, the snowboarder. - Two script errors here, major. That, and then them saying
postoperative infections are common in the middle of surgery, when he didn't even
have his infection yet. - That's like getting your name wrong. (laughs) - And the surgery, it went smoothly? - The cut position and the
femoral resurfacing were perfect. - What wasn't perfect? - Well, at the end of
surgery, the patient desatted, which means his oxygen level went down and his heart was beating really fast, which is really dangerous. We thought he might have
a clot in his lungs, so it was vital that we
finished the surgery quickly. - And that's when he left the sponge? - Yes. And I would do it again. - So this is actually really
good direct examination. - Yeah, I agree. - And the defense is
actually putting their main witness first, which is
probably the right way to go. It's either that or go with an expert. It's sort of crazy that the plaintiff did not have an expert. You would have multiple
experts in a suit like this. It would be a battle of the experts. - Well, the patient's life was at risk. I believe that the sponge
wouldn't compromise the joint. I made a call and I was right. It was the right call. - So leaving the sponge was
deliberate, not a mistake? You weren't being careless or distracted. - I mean, I think at this
point, we haven't seen anything that's related to the sponge at all. We actually never heard
about the sponge again. - What does a sponge have
to do with him getting an infection in his heart,
leading to septic emboli going to his legs and losing his legs? Unless the sponge caused
an infection in the hip and then because of
that sponge being there, then his hip was infected,
then his heart was infected, and then he threw the clots. - We have to assume that
they've left the sponge in for weeks because he went
home, came back with a fever. - Yeah.
- So he still has the sponge? - If they thought there was a sponge, but they needed to close
to make sure he wasn't having a pulmonary embolism,
they close, they check. He's not having a pulmonary embolism. They then they do the x-ray
to see if there's a sponge in fact in there, why did they
send them home with a sponge? - Well, they might've
been incredibly negligent. - Well then that's like,
that's not her fault. Then it's a hospital issue. - Make sure his BP and
O2 stats stay stable and bring me as post-op x-ray. I want to locate that sponge. - See?
- Yeah, I'm on team sponge. - It's my job to prioritize my patient and that's exactly what I did. I wasn't focused on anything or anyone other than my patient. - [Lawyer] Let's talk
about this embolectomy. - What happened to the post-op sponge? - I guess we'll never know. - You know, it's funny, in the beginning of the opening statement, he said there's one crucial mistake. - Right. - And I can't wrap my
head around what the, there's so many mistakes, I don't know which one is
the one they're going after. - It's a cornucopia of medical mistakes. - Yeah, exactly. - Talk about this embolectomy. Dr. Yang wanted to do
the heart surgery first. You wanted to work on Travis's leg. - Yes. - [Lawyer] Why? - Well, his foot was turning gray. - Oh, okay. So this doctor is saying
that she wasn't distracted and we know that there
were things going on that obviously effected her judgment. This would have come out in
the deposition, presumably. The other attorney would have asked what was going on that day. Were you distracted in any way? And they might know the
information that she's withholding from the jury here, and if you do that, it's the absolute worst thing you can do because true, it might
be an ancillary thing. - [Dr. Mike] But to the
jury, you look awful. - You have lied in front of the jury and now your credibility is toast and you are going to be found liable. - Well, his foot was turning
gray, which is an indication that the limb is starting to die. And I wanted to restore blood flow. Once a limb turns black,
there's nothing we can do. - As a vascular surgeon, you
are an orthopedic surgeon. - Could she have dual specialties? - Oh, I, no, they're not even related. Maybe like a vascular cardiothoracic. You see how you could be
like a vascular surgeon that works on the lower body as well as someone who works in the chest, a dual board certification
in orthopedic and vascular. I've never heard of that. - [Lawyer] She knew that the heart would keep throwing out
clots until it was repaired-- - Do you cook? - A little. - Okay, let's say you're cooking and you start a grease
fire in your kitchen, and then it spreads to your curtains. - Is she questioning her own counsel? - I mean, you can, it's rhetorical. You can get away with this. - Okay. - What do you do? Do you
put out the grease fire or do you extinguish the curtains? Which disaster do you tackle first? - It's so cynical of these writers. Oh, she's she's talking in terms that the jury can understand. I don't understand a blood clot. - I can't follow the analogy though. - They needed to tackle
the worst thing first. - But was that the worst thing? - Probably not. - The fact that the heart
is throwing out clots all over the place and it'll
continue throwing out clots whether or not you fix the leg. - It's not a perfect metaphor. - Yeah. - If I can't feel for my
patients without getting sued, then I guess I'm just going
to keep on getting sued because that's who I am. - I mean,
(laughs) I don't think I would
want my client to say that she's going to be
sued multiple times. This is one of those times where maybe she's lapsing into a narrative, which technically you're
not supposed to do. But if I was the plaintiff's lawyer, I don't want to come off as overbearing and argumentative and objecting, even if I'm right on a
ticky-tack objection. You just let it go. You let her tell her story
and let things move along. - I think it's from a clinical
trial on the Peterson hip. I thought I never heard back. - I thought I never heard back. Well, you probably should
have followed up on that. - Enclosed is the data you
requested, but please be advised we've currently put a stop to our trial. There have been five
instances of infection caused by the pseudomonas bacteria. - What? - We've traced to source
back to the Peterson joint. - Wait, so it wasn't the sponge? - No, apparently it was
the hip manufacturer. - So why do they keep
talking about the sponge if it was never in the patient? - I don't think he's a good lawyer. - That's such a problem. So they closed, worry
that there was a sponge. There was in fact, no sponge, and yet they're still
discussing it in the court? - It's a big swing and a miss. - [Torres] I can't just sit on this. I have to tell them, right? - I wouldn't. You didn't
willfully ignore any doubt. You didn't act irresponsibly
or maliciously. You worked off the information
you had at the time. - Well, okay. - Act of God, I like that word. - So, okay, so that is technically true. She acted on the information
she had at the time. So in that sense, she
wasn't actively reckless. She didn't know that it was,
I guess, a recalled hip. - The thing is if you get the hip, in order to get it, you would
have known about the recall. - Right, exactly, yeah. - It's not like you'd get it off eBay. - If this clinical trial is
having multiple instances of this infection, it's a defective hip. I'm sure Peterson has recalled this hip. If she didn't check to see
if that thing was recalled. - No, you can't get it, you
physically can't get the hip. It's not like they send it
to you and they're like, "well, you should check if it's recalled." No, you're ordering it
from the manufacturer. - Caveat emptor, buyer beware. - The only thing is that they could have pre-ordered the hip, got
it before the recall, then the recall happened. - Possibly, there's a lot
of negligence going on here. - Hey. Okay, thanks. They've reached a verdict. - That's quick. - Well, we have no idea where
we are in time right now. So it's not uncommon to engage
in settlement discussions with the other side,
right up until the time the jury actually announces the verdict. - [Dr. Mike] Really? - Oh yeah, absolutely. Because at that point-- - People get nervous. - People get nervous,
all the evidence is out, you know how the trial went. So you hear about people
settling on the courtroom steps, happens all the time. - [Dr. Mike] Wow.
- Happens all the time. I've literally written out a
settlement in bullet points on a legal pad, just
transcribing in the hallway sign both sides. It's kind of like, kind of
like a letter of intent. - Wow, so then at that point, do you stop the jury negotiations? - Yep, you just go in
front of the judge and say, "your honor, we don't
need to hear the verdict. We have decided to settle." - Wow, that's so cool. I think it's going to be, like
if she presents that letter and it's entered into evidence, it's either going to be clearly her fault because the manufacturer
did reach out many times and she just missed it,
not just a solo letter, or it's completely the
manufacturer's fault because sending one letter
like that is not sufficient to say, "Hey, this hip has
completely malfunctioning." - I would really like to
see the text messages. Some person at the Peterson Institute, "Hey Dr. Torres." - Gonna insert this real quick. - Hip recalled, LOL. (laughing) - [Narrator] Can an apology
actually heal our wounds? - Not literally. ♪ Someone to save her
from her dying self ♪ - [Narrator] Ease our pain? ♪ Always taking 10 steps
back on one step forward ♪ ♪ She's tired ♪ - Wait, what? - Yeah, you don't know. - No no no. ♪ Maybe it's too late ♪
(laughing) - How do you know what he said? - I'm pretty sure what he
mouthed was not guilty. - That's a prosecution thing too, right? - That's a, that's a criminal thing. It was never an option that
she was ever going to jail, but good job, you're not guilty. - All I'm saying is #missingsponge, because if there was no sponge and it was caused by
infection of the actual joint, she literally did nothing wrong. - Maybe the sponge traveled down his leg and cut off circulation.
(laughs) - It wasn't an embolectomy
that was needed to solve, it was a spongectomy. (playful music) - Mike, on my channel, I give these videos a
grade for legal realism. Will you join me in giving it
a grade for medical realism? - Do they want me to? No. Will I? Yes. - We're doing it anyway. - I think that's the longest review I've ever done of an episode. - Certainly metaphorically,
if not literally, based on how much time it took. - Well, because without a sponge, if the sponge don't fit, you gotta acquit. - I'd have to say that based
on everything that we saw, "Grey's Anatomy" gets a D minus at best. - How generous of you. It's an F minus for me on this episode. I could not follow it medically. F, F, F minus. - Lots of negligence, which I love to see, but other than that, totally unwatchable. This is a super long episode, so be sure to check out part
one on Dr. Mike's channel. Well, Dr. Mike, I'm sorry
to say that our patient barely survived the operation,
but if you'd like to see more reactions to even more
ridiculous legal dramas, check out this playlist
with all of my other legal reactions and Dr.
Mike's channel for the best reactions to all of the crazy
medical dramas out there. I'll see you in court.
It seems he's deleting comments. A bunch of comments referencing his actions had a bunch of likes and then just disappeared. It's possible that all the comments criticizing Doctor mike that had huge amounts of traction suddenly all disappeared through the natural working of the algorithm. But I doubt it.
Maybe Doctor Mike should spend less time partying during a pandemic and more time on reading comprehension then maybe he would understand the most simple analogy in the history of mankind
Ew, not Dr. Mike. He's the worst.
u/DJLegalEagle -- When's this one reaching Nebula?