A year ago, we discussed a bizarre case where a colonoscopy patient (identified only as “DB”) is suing over abusive comments made about him by his doctors . . . while he was under anesthesia. “DB” had failed to turn off his cellphone which continued to record comments of the doctors ridiculing him, his body, and his character. While the alleged defamation did not leave the operating room (that is until his lawsuit), he alleged that it was still defamation and Dr. Tiffany Ingham and others for $1.35 million in damages for defamation, infliction of emotional distress and illegally disclosing his health records. Well, after a three-day trial, a Fairfax County jury ordered the anesthesiologist and her practice to pay him $500,000.
On the tape, Dr. Tiffany Ingham is recorded addressing his unconscious body: “And really, after five minutes of talking to you in pre-op I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit.” She also reportedly called him a “big wimp” and a “retard.” In addition about ridiculing his alma mater of Mary Washington College, she is quoted as saying more menacing things about firing a gun up his rectum and suggesting that they falsely note on his chart that he had hemorrhoids.
The staff is portrayed as exhibiting all of the decorum and professionalism of an Animal House fraternity with Ingham as the resident Bluto. Some members reportedly jokes about a rash on DB’s penis and how he looks like he has syphilis. Ingham, who comes off particularly badly, is quoted as saying “It’s probably tuberculosis in the penis, so you’ll be all right.” They all discussed avoiding DB after the surgery. As discussed earlier, defamation does not require contemporary knowledge and indeed it is often discovered later by the victim. Moreover, it only requires publication to other individuals, not widespread disclosure or publication.
The jury appears to have rejected any argument that this was merely juvenile humor or even opinion. Clearly they are expressing their opinion as to his being a “wimp” or “retard.” Dr. Ingham, 42, could not be reached for comment and she no longer appears to work out of the Aisthesis anesthesia practice in Bethesda, Md. State licensing records indicate she has moved to Florida. The gastroenterologist who performed the colonoscopy, Soloman Shah, 48, was dismissed from the case, but he is shown engaging in the juvenile comments.
The jury awarded the man $100,000 for defamation — $50,000 each for the comments about the man having syphilis and tuberculosis — and $200,000 for medical malpractice, as well as the $200,000 in punitive damages.
Greg, That was a hilarious show.
Reno 911 cop Psychology – You’re all going to pay one day fantasy. File it under I should have seen this coming.
There are studies showing that you ‘hear’ what the doctors are saying while you are under. So it is to your benefit to advise your doctors that before a procedure that they engage only in ‘happy talk.’ This will also aid in your recovery.
Paul is right !
But I don’t know what the reliability or strength of this evidence would be as the patient would also be under sedation.
In the UK about 20+ yrs ago we had a dentist jailed for sexual abuse in connection with a patient sedated with diazemul, a form of iv diazepam. He always protested his innocence.
It was only several years later that it became recognised that iv diazepam was associated in particular with sexual hallucinations even if the patient was conscious.
So evidence obtained whilst under the influence of anaesthetic and sedation drugs is not always reliable. This could cause a dilemma in court?
But this does not mean that the doctor should be disrespectful to the patient and professional standards should be honoured by all professionals.
Would you hire a lawyer who was rude to you?
Did she go to Florida? Why does that strike me as highly probable?
What I. Annie wrote! Honestly, this is right out of a Reno 911 script!
Vad wrote, “Proving a defamation also requires harm.” Slander alleging a loathsome disease traditionally required no proof of specific pecuniary loss (i.e., special damages). I know nothing about Virginia law, but I’d guess Virginia would still retain such an exception to proving special damages if any state does.
There was one juror who did not want to give the plaintiff any compensation. Maybe it was Michael Scott.
What “defamation”! DB isn’t even a “protected class”. He’s just a plain loser who happened to hear what other people say about him. There’s no rule of professional conduct that forbids licensed practitioners from voicing negative “opinions” about their clients amongst themselves. None of the comments were “facts” that could be proven true or untrue. In this case, all the “emotional distress” was self-inflicted.
I attended the trial as a spectator. I know plaintiff’s counsel professionally. I commend the excellent job they did of presenting their client’s case.
Defense counsel made pretty much all of the arguments above and more. He was in the difficult position of trying to convince the jury to condone what the defense agreed was inexcusable conduct, on the grounds that plaintiff had not proved all of the elements of his claim. The judge denied the defense motion to strike the evidence (the Virginia state court equivalent of a federal motion for judgment at the close of the plaintiff’s case) because there was evidence on each of the elements that the jury could credit.
The plaintiff did not win on all claims — there was also a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and one for violation of the Virginia state law analogue of HIPPA.
While a colonoscopy is a fairly routine procedure, the plaintiff’s reason for having one was not — it was to rule out cancer.
There was evidence that third parties were entering and exiting the room during the procedure, so that took care of the publication element of defamation.
DB’s treatment by this doctor has deterred, and continues to deter him, from seeking additional medical treatment requiring sedation. He simply does not trust medical professionals anymore. There’s part of the damage element.
The discussion of his medical condition related to his genitals was irrelevant to his treatment, so the disclosure served no medical professional purpose, and the description of that medical condition was false.
Dr. Ingham discussed her intention to enter false information on his health record. He did in fact have internal hemorrhoids, but there was no evidence that she knew that when she made the statement or when she made the entry.
The sheer volume of crude locker room levity during the procedure supported the plaintiff’s argument that Dr. Ingham was simply not capable of paying full attention to the patient’s vital signs — apparently the jury found that convincing proof of negligence.
Dr. Ingham’s comments displayed utter contempt for her patient, as did the gastroenterologist’s comments. Her attempt to display remorse and contrition while on the witness stand struck me as unconvincing — I guess that the jury felt that way as well. She was not a good witness. Ultimately, I came away with the impression that she is probably best described as the grown-up version of one of the vile characters in the movie “Mean Girls.”
As a veteran, I was particularly appalled by her attorney’s mention of her Air Force service on casualty evacuation flights from Afghanistan as if that somehow should give her a free pass to behave as arrogantly as she did.
When I was on twilight drugs getting cataracts removed yesterday my doc and I discussed baseball. Both he and I always discuss baseball during exams as well. I do remember discussing the A-Rod 3000th hit ball. The doc asked me if the fan who caught it should return it. I replied no, but if he does it should be shoved up his lying ass.
Good for this patient, it was patient abuse and the medical personnel engaging in it would be fired in most any medical facility.
I’ve had that same procedure numerous times. I can’t fathom having a cellphone with me since all you have on is a flimsy gown open in the back and maybe some socks…
What an amazing case.
I thought I’d heard it all. I’m (nearly) speechless.
In a way it mirrors the sort of comments made on your blog about the Kentucky Judge who wanted to shoot a policeman in the head. So this is yet another example of how even talking about guns in an inappropriate way can get you into trouble.
Only the anatomical target in this case appears to be different.
Did this case go before the Medical Board ? They might not have questioned the standard of care but they might question the standard of professionalism?
But jokes are often told in an operating theatre but not usually at the patients expense.
In this case that whilst the patient appeared to be the butt of the humour, he turned the tables on the doctors and he has clearly had the last laugh.
Good for him…..
I believe justice was served. Mocking, denigrating, threatening actions AND words are antithetical to the healing profession, and healing processes within the human body and psyche. As to her words having the ability to influence others to others to think less of this man without having any personal experience with him, this appears true, too. Vad: “…even on an @—- like this patient apparently was.” Wow, I didn’t read anything in the whole article that revealed what this man’s character except that he felt violated, and harmed and called his perpetrators on it. Kudos for him.
I am dismayed to read that Dr. Ingham has moved to my state.
I can’t wait for the micro-aggression and Badfeel lawsuits.
Never go to a doctor named Tiffany.
Reblogged this on BLOGGING BAD ~ What Folks Are Saying/Thinking!…Gunny G….
If plaintiff had Google installed on device, then Google also has copy of conversation.
Google eavesdropping tool installed on computers without permission
Google software is capable of listening in on conversations held in front of a computer.
First spotted by open source developers, the Chromium browser – the open source basis for Google’s Chrome – began remotely installing audio-snooping code that was capable of listening to users.
It was designed to support Chrome’s new “OK, Google” hotword detection – which makes the computer respond when you talk to it – but was installed, and, some users have claimed,
it is activated on computers without their permission.
Without consent, Google’s code had downloaded a black box of code that – according to itself – had turned on the microphone and was actively listening to your room.
I looked up Virginia Wiretapping Law
Virginia’s wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. Virginia makes it a crime to intercept or record any “wire, oral, or electronic communication” unless one party to the conversation consents.
Virginia Code § 19.2-62. Therefore, if you operate in Virginia, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance.
Proving a defamation also requires harm. What harm did the patient allege? (apart from the emotional distress from discovering the remarks, which was not intended).
Another element of the proof is disclosing information to the 3rd person who was previously unaware. In this case, it appears, the medical team was exchanging the remarks between themselves, when each of them already had an opinion about the patient, and it looks like it was common opinion.
Without proof of the contrary, it’s possible that the docs in fact were so professional that those negative remarks had zero effect on their work. That’s actually the very definition of professionalism: your work is not affected by emotions. As paradoxically as it sounds, but if the outcome of the surgery was positive (which is what matters in the end, doesn’t it), this incident had to serve as commending the professionalism of the doctors, who did good job even on an @sshole like this patient apparently was, and even while exercising their free speech.
I wonder if some one under a ‘nom de plume’ disses some one else under a ‘nom de plume’ can sue for defamation of character? Hmmm.