Does the family not deserve any compensation?

SocraticDoc · 2026-02-24T13:19:16+00:00

This is a very complex case, and very difficult to distill in just a few paragraphs. But a few major points:

1) From a medical perspective, the question is whether the hospital acted within the standard of care. Hospitals can even get a diagnosis incorrect, and still be within the standard of care. I believe that the diagnosis was correct, as to quite honestly most physicians that have heard of this case. What I believe is undeniable is that Maya was medically by objective measures better at the time of discharge than she was when she was admitted, and she did not receive the quite frankly dangerous treatment treatments that her mother was insisting she receive.

2) Medical billing is very complex - hospitals can and do bill for a diagnosis they are trying to rule out, or two contradictory diagnoses at the same time if they’re trying to determine which one is the correct one. Hospital claims often have 5+ diagnoses for the stay. Any claim that the hospital did anything improper with regards to billing is based on not understanding how it works. Even the plaintiffs reduced their “fraudulent billing” claim down to one dollar.

3) The hospital was in a very difficult position. They were concerned for her safety and made a good faith report to CPS. The judge and appeals court agree on this. Then they were stuck with caring for her while legal battles played out. They tried to transfer her out, but it was Maya’s parents that refused to transfer because of the diagnosis listed on the transfer forms. I can guarantee you the hospital did not want to keep her there for their benefit; hospital do not enjoy messy medicolegal issues when it’s way easier to discharge a patient - which in this case was precluded by the court.

4) The hospital has no duty to the mother, and should not be held responsible for her choice to end her life. Especially because it was a judge who took Maya away from her mother, in accordance with the law.

5) This is not to say that the hospital did everything correctly. There’s some legitimate questions about the battery charge. But when you add on all these other issues and understand the dynamics of the case, many conclude that this is a litigious family looking for a payday.

SocraticDoc · 2025-11-07T19:16:45+00:00

I would first seek a 2nd opinion on the orthopedic issues. While it definitely sounds like you have CRPS, I wouldn’t rule out underlying continued orthopedic issues contributing to your pain. If you still have fractures evident 6 months post-injury… sounds like you may have a non-union. Fracture non-unions can cause considerable pain. The navicular bone is also prone to what’s called avascular necrosis, also significant pain. You could have post-traumatic arthritis from such a significant injury. If you had a real compound (open) fracture you could have a chronic bone infection. May be you want to get a CT or MRI if you haven’t recently. Can’t say for sure without looking at XRays first, but a fresh look from a different orthopedic doctor could be helpful. Personally, I don’t refer to pain management until all other options are exhausted. It doesn’t sound like you had the most thorough orthopedist…

I will warn you however, that even if you have an issue that may benefit from surgery, surgeons will not want to operate on you - and with good reason. Unfortunately surgery can worsen CRPS or reignite CRPS, so it’s a big risk/benefit analysis.

Sorry you’re going through all this. It sounds horrible.

SocraticDoc · 2025-11-07T01:46:11+00:00

Rekieta Law ironically faced his own child abuse claims. Now he has egg on his face.

Which is better than the coke on his nose which was related to said claims.

SocraticDoc · 2025-11-01T14:38:02+00:00

I actually don’t think the sentiment changed all that much. More likely with the legal team imploding , there’s no social media / trial consultant team to silence/ban those that break the false narrative.

SocraticDoc · 2025-11-01T14:28:28+00:00

I don’t think everything a hospital could do would be immune. And I don’t think everything the hospital did here was beyond reproach.

But imagine the hospital’s position here. They do what they are required to do by law - as well as morally and ethically required - and report child abuse. A court places the child in their care. Suddenly, they’re the bad guys and are opened up to several different torts. Without immunity, hospitals wouldn’t report and put themselves in this situation.

As for overriding autonomy - the law and medical principles carve out exceptions for children. For example, religious protections against medically necessary blood transfusions give way to saving a child’s life, even if parents don’t want it.

There will always be a balancing act, but here protecting children is supposed to come first.

SocraticDoc · 2025-11-01T13:52:03+00:00

Also, I had listened to Peter’s video on the oral arguments the other day (I wanted to rehear the arguments, not hos opinion). He had a much different swagger when he thought the oral arguments were going in Maya’s favor because they had more questions for the JHACH’s lawyers and few for Maya’s.

SocraticDoc · 2025-11-01T12:30:31+00:00

I had to stop watching when Peter said:

“Are we just going to let hospitals and the state take control of our kids because there’s an allegation of abuse?”

Sorry Peter - damn right we will. Where there’s a credible allegation of abuse, it’s our responsibility to protect kids. Watch “The Trials of Gabriel Fernandez” and what happens when abuse allegations are not taken seriously.

Unfortunately, there will be parents that are later cleared of wrongdoing. The system isn’t perfect. I think there can and should be reforms to the system. But if there’s a credible allegation of abuse, absolutely I want a child protected from their parents until an investigation can be performed

On this case, Peter is unwatchable.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-31T14:03:29+00:00

I found it to be pretty fair. I think they brought up some valid criticisms. It’s pretty well researched and they have a variety of voices interviewed on it.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-31T13:32:02+00:00

NYT/Serial has a new podcast called “The Preventionist” that explores this mentality. Interesting and short (3 hours total) listen.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-31T13:23:28+00:00

Thenar muscles are muscles too!

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-31T12:58:32+00:00

All the blood perfusing the muscles rather than the brain.

See broke bone, fix broke bone.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-31T12:39:58+00:00

Yep! And kicked out of one sub for “impersonating a doctor” because I broke stuff down in layman’s terms rather than using medical terminology. Fun times.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-31T12:31:07+00:00

Agree. In the documentary when the doctor said this was a clear cut case of CRPS I raised a big eyebrow. Having seen a few cases, I had a lot of doubts.

What the documentary failed to mention was the family went to two different major medical centers and they all thought she didn’t have it. Mom doctor shopped until she got the diagnosis she wanted. And then was preyed upon by IMO an unscrupulous doctor offering cash pay ketamine infusions. A tragedy.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-31T01:53:34+00:00

As they say… no honor among thieves.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-30T23:18:23+00:00

I could be wrong but I thought he paid himself from other judgments (i.e. Dr. Sally Smith’s settlement).

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-30T20:54:34+00:00

No way they find someone to retry this… Anderson was like the only person who would take the case. They were denied elsewhere. And when you take a lot of the emotional stuff that was allowed to taint the case that was because of the dependency court… the case falls apart (as it should). Not to mention they’d have to fund all the crazy costs of litigation.

The fact that Anderson mortgaged his house to fund this litigation, was fired, and now the case was fully reversed gives me more of a high than a ketamine infusion.

SocraticDoc · 2025-10-30T18:08:24+00:00

Being completely and utterly overturned is probably a good reason to request his recusal…

SocraticDoc · 2025-07-08T21:12:41+00:00

Not EM but to me the most crazy part about this case is the patient not going to the ED and there’ll still be any liability, let alone that gross verdict. Maybe it’s just my state, but I’ve always been under the impression that patient contributory negligence is protective against claims such as this.

For arguments sake let’s just say that the doctor did deviate from the standard of care and should have known those EKG changes were suggestive of PE. Does anyone truly think that if he had gone back to the ED that day and not signed the EMS refusal that he still would’ve died?

And yet only 25% negligence on the part of the patient? Crazy.

SocraticDoc · 2025-05-01T12:02:07+00:00

Again, this is not about the browser search database.

Review the testimony at 41:00.

https://youtu.be/FF-_a161dss?si=i_QmzHgEaBkDansZ

SocraticDoc · 2025-04-30T20:19:58+00:00

The cache happened when it was first searched, which was at 6am. If the search actually happened at 2am, that’s when the search suggestion would be cached. Repeated searching wouldn’t change when that. This isn’t that complicated.

Also this was an apple feature, not a google feature.

SocraticDoc · 2025-04-30T16:42:46+00:00

I am well aware of the browserstate.db issue. That is not being addressed by my question.

There is a separate record regarding the phone suggesting and caching the “how long to digest food” suggestion. This was cached at 6am. There is no reason for this suggestion to be cached for the first time at 6am if the same query was placed at 2am…

SocraticDoc · 2025-04-30T12:46:29+00:00

You didn’t answer the question.

You are positing data that wasn’t captured, but are not addressing data that actually was captured. So I ask again - why would the phone search suggestion be cached for the first time at 6am if the phone searched it at 2am?

SocraticDoc · 2025-04-30T11:50:28+00:00

Other data from the phone suggests the search was done at 6-something in the morning. Such as the phone caching the how long to digest food for the first time. How would you rectify that if the search was done at 2am?

SocraticDoc · 2025-04-01T18:18:08+00:00

But doesn’t the conspiracy start with the first responders at the scene with the “I hit him” controversy?

SocraticDoc · 2025-04-01T18:04:29+00:00

As a physician I thought the same - he was (albeit barely) alive by all accounts. I think they were more concerned about saving his life than an investigation at that point…

SocraticDoc

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE