Reimold Sues Johns Hopkins Hospital

[Frobby]

A year of collecting stats during arb years. So bit more complicated then that.

Is it? The injury occurred in 2012, when his salary for that year was already set. The O's agreed on a salary for 2013 that would have been the same regardless of whether his surgery had succeeded or failed (because the failure wasn't known when his salary was negotiated). If Reimold had been healthy in 2013, what reason do we have to think he would have done more than he eventually did in 2014 (when he played so poorly that he got released 2-3 times)?

[webbrick2010]

Is it? The injury occurred in 2012, when his salary for that year was already set. The O's agreed on a salary for 2013 that would have been the same regardless of whether his surgery had succeeded or failed (because the failure wasn't known when his salary was negotiated). If Reimold had been healthy in 2013, what reason do we have to think he would have done more than he eventually did in 2014 (when he played so poorly that he got released 2-3 times)?

Yeah, it seems pretty hard to figure very much monetary damage was done. Not sure I have a great deal of sympathy for a guy who made 1M for not playing for a year. Communication is a two way street, I'm sure Nolan heard what he wanted to from the Doctor. Did he every specifically ask if the bones were fused. Did he check with anyone else (physical therapist, etc) to see what his restrictions should be. Seems pretty shaky to me, but I'm not a lawyer, although I sometimes stay at Holiday Inn Express.

[weams]

Is it? The injury occurred in 2012, when his salary for that year was already set. The O's agreed on a salary for 2013 that would have been the same regardless of whether his surgery had succeeded or failed (because the failure wasn't known when his salary was negotiated). If Reimold had been healthy in 2013, what reason do we have to think he would have done more than he eventually did in 2014 (when he played so poorly that he got released 2-3 times)?

I think the issue is that he dove into the stands and shattered his neck. Not what was done with it afterwards.

[BradyBunch]

Is it? The injury occurred in 2012, when his salary for that year was already set. The O's agreed on a salary for 2013 that would have been the same regardless of whether his surgery had succeeded or failed (because the failure wasn't known when his salary was negotiated). If Reimold had been healthy in 2013, what reason do we have to think he would have done more than he eventually did in 2014 (when he played so poorly that he got released 2-3 times)?

Yes. What you are missing is that John Hopkins and Orioles (who he is not suing) cleared him to play at the start of 2013. He played 40 games and played poorly. He played while injured and it required another surgery. So instead of him playing healthy in late 2013 ( say 40 games) or coming at the start of 2014 for ST healthy he was set back 2 years in which were his arb years. He has a valid case to say his career was harmed in playing time and salary due to being cleared wrongly by the fact he was released/traded/cut due to missing one to two years healthy playing time.

[weams]

I assume that Nolan is in a bit of a financial bind and would love to have this as a nest egg for when it is over. He is a bit older and more encumbered than most in his position.

[tntoriole]

Yeah, that fly by night outfit, Johns Hopkins. I mean who knows what they are doing there, anyway?

[waroriole]

It was Johnny Hopkins and Sloan Kettering and they were blazing that **** up every day.

Well I'm not calling him dad.

[atomic]

I do this for a living. The most interesting part of the case will be projecting out his earnings had the surgery been successful. It will be a battle of the damages experts.

There is a cap of $710k or $725k on pain and suffering in the case depending upon when it is that the alleged malpractice occurred (date of surgery vs. date of discharge).

Honestly, if he did not have the possibility of the dimunition in wages, it is very possible it would have been difficult to find a lawyer to take the case. If Nolan were simply retired or a home-maker, his max upside would be the $725k plus his additional medical costs (surgery plus rehab). Those are the types of cases that defendants are willing to gamble on because the absolute limits of their liability aren't high. The time, energy, expenses, and risks of these lawsuits unfortunately leave many with legitimate claims of malpractice wanting for lawyers.

Difficulty finding an attorney to take a medical malpractice lawsuit? Surely, you jest. 725k is a huge amount. You would have no trouble getting to sign up for a 1/3rd of that.

[baltfan]

Difficulty finding an attorney to take a medical malpractice lawsuit? Surely, you jest. 725k is a huge amount. You would have no trouble getting to sign up for a 1/3rd of that.

I don't jest at all. As you note, plaintiff's attorneys work on contingency fees. If you don't win, you don't get paid. Generally people want to believe their doctors are good. Accordingly, jurors will tend to give doctors the benefit of the doubt. At best, most malpractice cases are 50/50 propositions. They also are fiercely litigated and require a substantial time investment. On top of that, they are expensive. A case like this one without the economic element would probably cost almost $100k to try. That $100k isn't attorney time. Those are expenses for experts, illustrations, depositions, etc.

So if your are a lawyer evaluating a case and think you have a 50/50 shot at winning and if you lose are out $100k plus maybe a 1000 hours of time, a $240k (actually probably $270k since cases in lit are usually on a 40% fee) upside isn't always going to be worth it. This is especially true if you are up against a famous Hopkins physician and it is far from a given that a jury would award $725k for perhaps a year of pain (which couldn't have been too bad since he was playing baseball) and the pain of a revision surgery.

[SteveA]

I?m not great at this Hallmark stuff, but Art, when I look at you now, I don?t want to kick you in the head quite as much.

I still wouldn't let him by my latex salesman.

[slakattack]

If someone botched one of Machado's surgeries, they would take up a collection on OH to operate a Justice for Manny website. But since it's Reimold, meh he's Polly just padding his retirement account at the expense of Johns Hopkins, which has never made a medical mistake since its inception.

[BohKnowsBmore]

I smoked pot with Johnny Hopkins.......

It was Johnny Hopkins and Sloan Kettering...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kelsey59]

Yeah, that fly by night outfit, Johns Hopkins. I mean who knows what they are doing there, anyway?

Hopkins is a teaching hospital. You have to be careful going there, you really don't know what type of care will get.

[atomic]

If someone botched one of Machado's surgeries, they would take up a collection on OH to operate a Justice for Manny website. But since it's Reimold, meh he's Polly just padding his retirement account at the expense of Johns Hopkins, which has never made a medical mistake since its inception.

Hopkins paid 190 million dollars to the women who got their pevlic exam photos taken via pen camera. Reimold's lawsuit is chump change them.

[atomic]

I don't jest at all. As you note, plaintiff's attorneys work on contingency fees. If you don't win, you don't get paid. Generally people want to believe their doctors are good. Accordingly, jurors will tend to give doctors the benefit of the doubt. At best, most malpractice cases are 50/50 propositions. They also are fiercely litigated and require a substantial time investment. On top of that, they are expensive. A case like this one without the economic element would probably cost almost $100k to try. That $100k isn't attorney time. Those are expenses for experts, illustrations, depositions, etc.

So if your are a lawyer evaluating a case and think you have a 50/50 shot at winning and if you lose are out $100k plus maybe a 1000 hours of time, a $240k (actually probably $270k since cases in lit are usually on a 40% fee) upside isn't always going to be worth it. This is especially true if you are up against a famous Hopkins physician and it is far from a given that a jury would award $725k for perhaps a year of pain (which couldn't have been too bad since he was playing baseball) and the pain of a revision surgery.

These things tend to get settled out of court.