Lol we don't know who Dr. Dao was on the phone with. Most reports actually say he was on the phone with United. Let's not make up facts now. Anyways, seems like you could forever speculate this or anything else really if you chose to. So I'll move on...
That's a conspiracy theory that even ToyCen wouldn't believe. Dao seems financially set to live comfortably, given his career as a doctor, his wife is a doctor, and children are doctors. I don't think he'd risk falsifying medical records, perjure himself, and possibly lose favor to the public by faking injuries. He doesn't have much motive to bluff United into a bigger settlement when he's got a big one coming that he doesn't seem to need. The video of him returning on the plane shows him bleeding from his mouth. That's probably his tooth injuries. He's also a bit irrational and incoherent. That's probably the concussion. We haven't heard any witness reports to contradict his injuries. Now is it plausible that he did all you said? Sure. But that behavior is more befitting of a conman with a premeditated plan to injure himself on company property and milk it for all its worth. Everything had to have been set up so perfectly that he'd be the one picked to be thrown off the plane. I'm not buying it.
Early reports, which are admittedly shaky, said he was on the phone with his lawyer. He could have been on the phone with United, but I'm not making anything up. Just going off my best recollection/interpretation. I'll happily scratch that if the reality was different. *edit -- I've checked a few later reports that seem to indicate he was on the phone with United whilst on the plane. So that's good. A few others indicate he called his lawyer after the fact/in the terminal, which is a pretty logical sequence of events.
Nothing that I said requires any pre-meditation on the part of Dr. Dao before the incident. All of what I said could very easily be arranged after the incident. It's not a conspiracy theory. This type of stuff happens in personal injury lawsuits. There's a reason those lawyers (the caricature of the ambulance chaser, "who told you to put the balm on?!", etc) have the reputation they do. People get busted faking injuries all the time, be it in personal injury suits, disability claims, or otherwise. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying there is room for doubt. Big difference. Not only that, the fact that this almost assuredly will never see the courtroom, nor will Dr. Dao ever be exposed to anyone remotely associated with United Airlines until this is settled, opens up a golden opportunity for Dr. Dao's representation to claim any plausible injury they want without ever having to prove it to anyone. United is on their heels here. Go public with everything you possibly can to tilt opinion (further) in your favor. More money for your settlement. Smart.
As long as you position it as 'it is possible that the passenger could be overstating or even faking his injuries". Though the videos and statements by other passengers who witnessed the event seem to strongly support how, where, and what injuries happened. But if you are going to suggest that the passenger's story may have been enhanced, there is also a chance that the airlines story was also enhanced. In fact, the airlines story has changed significantly eg. the flight was overbooked, then not overbooked. How the passengers were selected to be "re-accommodated" also has changed.
Indeed. That is why I said this: I'm not falling for United's "change of heart". They're no feel good redemption story here.
It kind of is. At this point, it makes no sense for Dr. Dao to exaggerate his injuries and jeopardize his position. He already has United by the balls.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it makes perfect sense to use his leverage and benefit of the doubt to its maximum effect.
I agree whole heartily. The worse he looks, the more of a slam dunk this case is. The defense will probably take pictures every minute of every day, then the ones that look worst will be the ones they use if it goes to trial. Jurors are dumb. They won't look at the facts, only the effects. Even if this case doesn't go to trial or a jury one at that, you still have to prepare like it is.
Yes, but that's not what you were saying earlier. Earlier, you were positing that Dao's lawyer could exaggerate/fabricate the severity of Dao's injuries. There's a huge difference between using "benefit of the doubt" and using false evidence. In Dao's case, none of that is necessary b/c his case is already a jackpot winner on his own merits. It's in his best interest to ensure that his claims are bulletproof. The more he exaggerates, the more vulnerable he makes himself.
That's the thing, it isn't "false evidence" because this isn't a trial, and it isn't going to trial. As such, there's incredibly little risk in fudging up a few medical conditions that can either be falsified easily or never disproven. His claims so far have not made his case very vulnerable at all. He is still traveling at warp speeds towards an enormous settlement.
I don't tend to spend any time in the D&D forum, but I have been wondering if this thread has more of a D&D vibe to it than is usually the case in the Hangout. Is that basically an accurate assessment of how this thread has gone?
And why jeopardize that by fudging medical conditions? A single disproved medical fudge will cast doubt on all of his claims and shift the narrative. Think of the headlines. As much as the public supports him now, they'll turn their backs on him if he's caught falsifying injuries in an attempt to beef up an already lucrative settlement.
Using your logic, why have a press conference at all? Why claim a concussion and missing teeth? It is all a dog and pony show to keep the case in the headlines and exert pressure on the other parties to pay more than they are comfortable paying. Why go into cognitive deficits? The same reason the attorney discussed a concussion and loss of teeth. It increases sympathy with the press and also increases pressure on other parties to settle. It isn't as simple as lying. For example, if the plaintiff tells one of the doctor's that treat him that he thinks he passed out, doesn't remember exactly what happened or had a headache after the event; he will likely be diagnosed with a concussion based purely on subjective complaints. Does that mean he did in fact have a concussion? Absolutely not. Is it a lie for the plaintiff attorney to say his client had a concussion? No, because in the doctor notes it will have a diagnosis of concussion based on subjective complaints.
Again. It isn't a matter of fudging anything. Doctor's do not agree on diagnosing conditions all the time, and even more so on what caused a particular injury or condition. Virtually every high profile PI case has doctor's on both sides with completely opposite opinions. That is where objective medical findings become more important than subjective complaints.
LOL... talk about bad timing... http://www.marketwatch.com/story/united-is-about-to-hit-more-turbulence-2017-04-13
All the dbags in this thread that victim shame the little old doctor and keep calling him a convicted drug felon should apply for this position. Instant hiring.
Fudging is modifying medical records or making something up. Going to a plaintiff friendly doctor and getting a questionable diagnosis based on subjective complaints is a grey area and I believe unethical but it isn't legal malpractice. This is all a money grab from the perspective of the attorneys involved. Plaintiff's go to doctor's that are plaintiff friendly and defendants send plaintiffs for examinations to doctors that are defendant friendly. It is why subjective diagnoses are worthless. When you get clear cut objective findings, then it is harder to debate what injuries are and are not authentic.
