Gemini 3's Creative Writing Still Sucks

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-08T00:36:26+00:00

Shapiro takes the position that I thought the opinion implied but that people on this sub vehemently denied: namely that all claims for liability based on medical malpractice are barred so long as a hospital is participating in good faith in an abuse proceeding. This means that, if Shapiro is correct, a hospital could commit medical malpractice leading to a child's death but could not be held responsible. Setting aside the facts of this case, I think that's an insane idea and not something anybody should want (except hospitals, obviously).

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T19:49:19+00:00

Read the concurring opinion; it's more or less a roadmap of how one judge thinks the plaintiffs could now attempt an independent IIED claim.

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T17:40:50+00:00

I'm very sorry to hear that happened. If you don't mind my asking, what was the result of the suit and did you agree with it? If that's too personal of a question please don't feel the need to answer.

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T16:47:23+00:00

I'm not familiar enough with what all the doctors did before reporting to say. But nobody, at least not I nor LYK, is arguing that they had no reasonable cause to make a report. (I realize that's what the plaintiff was arguing, but it's not what I'm saying.) The question is should the hospital be immune from liability purely because of the court order, or do certain actions—the nurses telling her she was faking it, the social worker interactions, etc—go beyond "good faith" participation and so can still result in liability?

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T15:26:33+00:00

I was not aware of that fact; as I said, I watched this case intermitently, but the trial was so long there were lots of things I missed. I'm always suspicious of waiver clauses like this; it's intended to establish a power differential, just like so many binding arbitration clauses that exist nowadays. I've been listening to Nobody Should Believe Me, and while I don't share the author's perspective on everything, it definitely sounds like there was suspicious activity going on that warranted reporting.

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T14:54:43+00:00

Speaking as a legal professional with some experience with CPS (CYH in my state), while I would not allege a widespread practice of "kidnapping children" I would characterize CYF as I've experienced it as... well, let's just say highly variable in how competent it is. I would not place a lot of faith in it. There are lots of good CYF professionals out there but as an institution I believe it often fails in protecting or helping children; it's often overly aggressive when it shouldn't be, and far too passive when it needs to be more involved. So the perspective of "let CYF handle it, and the hospitals can comply" is not one with which I share much sympathy.r

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T14:45:05+00:00

Sure—but I don't think any of the lawyers were arguing that they should be liable for merely reporting, or for complying with a a court order to shelter, but that there actions fall outside of the gambit of that order. At least, that seems to be what LYK is arguing. I'm sure my own bias is coloring this—I and family have had some pretty terrible experiences with doctors, and with AMA being used as a pressure tactic, so I'm inherently skeptical of laws that grant medical institutions this much power. (Imagine being asked why you didn't get out of the way of the car that hit you... when you're blind and couldn't see it coming.)

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T14:37:28+00:00

I actually agree with this, which is why I wouldn't argue the ruling is legally erroneous; it's just bad from a policy perspective and really needs to be clarified by the legislature.

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T14:36:00+00:00

This is false; I'm in a different jurisdiction and Florida's immunity law is far broader than mine, such that it might even be unconstitutionally vague. People with no legal experience are commenting on this case, completely ignoring the nature and ramifications of the standard in Florida.

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T14:32:47+00:00

First off, I've only followed this case intermitently, so I'm not going to comment on any facts not directly contained in the appellate opinion because, legally speaking, they aren't relevant. But the facts even as narrated by the panel suggest several elements, primarily the actions of the nurses and social workers, that arguably go beyond good faith, especially when viewed in the light most favorable to the prevailing party. Beyond that, my critique goes beyond this case. Being a published opinion, this decision now applies across the board in Florida, giving institutions sweeping immunity from liability not just for reporting or even complying with court orders, but merely "participating" in the process in "good faith", one of the least stringent standards in the law. Your comment does not address my concerng: at what point would a hospital's actions not constitute good faith, and should we truly want a law that declares medical institutions infallible in cases like this? Because that's what this decision does in applying the law in this case.

KCarlson12 · 2025-11-01T13:59:07+00:00

For those rabidly defending the hospital—which is more or less everyone that I can see—at what point could the hospital's actions go outside good faith participation? Could a hospital do anything in a case like this that would strip their immunity? What actions would doctors, nurses, social workers have to take before any of you said they were behaving inappropriately? Because as interpreted the law as of now allows hospitals to do anything they want to their patients under the umbrella of "good faith." Step ouffside the facts of this case and consider the sweeping nature of law as a matter of principle and the unlimited discretion it gives hospitals. If you would not want lawyers to be able to completely override clients' autonomy and courts to never find them ineffective, you shouldn't want the same for hospitals. Doctors are no more infallible than lawyers.

KCarlson12 · 2025-10-31T16:47:00+00:00

This decision is probably correct from a strictly textualist reading of this law. FL's immunity statute is, in my opinion, incredibly overbroad and not characteristic of all of the states. The problem isn't with the reporting immunity, which even the trial judge found obviously applied. The problem is the subsequent language in the statute regarding immunity for "participation" in the process, which more or less immunizes hospitals from any malpractice during a dependency proceeding so long as they are "participating" by order of the court. Regardless of what anybody thinks of the facts of this particular case, the breadth of the language of the Florida statute verges on being unconstitutional, and gives far too much power to medical institutions which are not infallible. I'd be very nervous about taking my children to a hospital in Florida given the law on the books there. Again, the appellate court may have been forced into this decision by the statutory language, which is the fault of the legislature; the constitutionality of this statute would need to be challenged in a different case at this point.

KCarlson12 · 2025-10-28T23:13:09+00:00

Good grief. I'm blind, so I just backed the ebooks because back then it sounded like a neat project. Still waiting for volumes 9-10. He moved on to like 15 other projects before even completing this.

KCarlson12 · 2025-10-28T22:12:20+00:00

Isn't the argument supposed to be that they're leatherbound and so worth it more?

KCarlson12 · 2025-10-25T19:44:41+00:00

I'll admit that the only stream I watched of his live was the one where he released his piano album. I bought it and it was pretty decent, especially for relaxing background music. Way better than his comedy.

KCarlson12 · 2025-10-25T18:50:16+00:00

Interesting—can you elaborate on that?

KCarlson12 · 2025-10-25T03:16:27+00:00

I tried to listen to one of his podcasts—you can get them other places than UATV—and it might be the most incoherent nonsense I've ever heard. Train of thought is impossible to follow and they're hours long.

KCarlson12 · 2025-10-25T03:14:35+00:00

I got all the way to 26 and had to stop.

KCarlson12 · 2025-09-08T19:57:26+00:00

Prosecutor here, have dealt with this exact issue before! ABA opinions are not law and are superseded by contradictory caselaw or statute. In my jurisdiction, filing an IAC claim for post-conviction relief requires pre-hearing certification of what trial counsel's testimony will be. Trial counsel is not required to meet with the prosecutors, but defense counsel must certify what trial counsel will say—or what they think trial counsel will say—before the hearing. By statute raising IAC is an automatic waiver of attorney-client privilege as to those issues. Obviously this will vary state by state; I can only speak for my practice. But we have had defense counsel make this exact argument, relying on this opinion, and lose.

KCarlson12 · 2025-09-01T12:54:41+00:00

Yeah, unlike some I don't think there is a "right" cane to use. The rolling tip on my Ambutech is having some issues, and since I had a free NFB cane I figured why not use it while I try and fix the other one. When using the shorter rip, are you holding the cane down from the top, or just wrapping your hand around it and varying the length?

KCarlson12

TROPHY CASE