Can a Patient Assume Legal Risk of Injury by Not Following Doctor’s Orders?

[George K]

https://www.empr.com/home/features/can-a-patient-assume-legal-risk-of-injury-by-not-following-doctors-orders/

tl;dr version

Mr. B has heart disease and other co-morbidities. Has cardiac stent placed and told to not exert himself for a week. 5 days later goes hunting, climbs into deer stand, falls out after fainting, breaks bones.

Sues doctor.

[Jolly]

Mr. B gets no monetary award.

He does get a wave and a Bill Engvall "Here's your sign".

[LuFins Dad]

The Appellate Court was clearly wrong and it's astounding that they overturned the original decision.

[Axtremus]

Standard of care. Whether the doctor's orders are reasonable. Whether the patient's actions are reasonable.

"7 days" of "no exertion" after a stent insertion sounds reasonable to me, but I am but a layman on this issue. Let the specialists/practitioners argue this out. If the question comes down to "what does 'exertion' mean to a lay person," the judge and the jurors can resolve that themselves as lay people.

[Jolly]

Remind me to never put you on a jury.

[Axtremus]

@Jolly, just curious, perhaps you have testified in medical malpractice cases before, but have you ever served as a juror in a medical malpractice case?

[Jolly]

Lad, they'd strike me in a heartbeat.

[Mik]

That’s insane.

[taiwan_girl]

Does seem kind of goofy to overturn.