Jump to content

Today 3


Recommended Posts

thank god.

I'm working on deadline to get these long, and for me, complicated responses done in federal and state court, and I just realized I have one fewer to do than I thought.

I need to get more sleep, but what a little shot in the arm.  I'll be able to leave at a reasonable hour tonight.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, gandolfication said:

thank god.

I'm working on deadline to get these long, and for me, complicated responses done in federal and state court, and I just realized I have one fewer to do than I thought.

I need to get more sleep, but what a little shot in the arm.  I'll be able to leave at a reasonable hour tonight.  

I hope that you get some sleep.  it is always nice to leave at reasonable hours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2019 at 12:19 PM, gandolfication said:

thank god.

I'm working on deadline to get these long, and for me, complicated responses done in federal and state court, and I just realized I have one fewer to do than I thought.

I need to get more sleep, but what a little shot in the arm.  I'll be able to leave at a reasonable hour tonight.  

Hey! I was wondering how you are doing.

Serendipity is such a grand thing...like finding your wallet that you thought you lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2019 at 9:00 PM, Rattler6 said:

I hope that you get some sleep.  it is always nice to leave at reasonable hours.

thanks.  I worked another long day yesterday.  I may post the brief later; I cannot believe it turned out well.  This one I think is actually interesting and understandable to read.  It deals with a surgery the doctor performed using a robot.

The sr. associate came back in at 10pm and we finished together a 40 page reply brief to the hospital and doctor's teams of corporate lawyers opposition briefs, on the large medical malpractice case that's our boss's baby.  We filed it at 11:30 pm, 30 minutes before deadline.  He gave us 7 pages of handwritten changes and additions in mid-afternoon.  The thing was a monster.  10,000 pages of trial transcript, discovery, etc. to wade through.

I read it last night until 2am when I got home and was surprised how well it flowed and read given the drafting process which included using about half the content from our original motion for a new trial and for the court's judgment in our favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict (due to all kinds of prejudicial errors an incorrect applications of the law).

The wise men say we have no chance of success (the same judge who presided over the trial and made most rulings against us will decide whether to acknowledge--in published writing--that he and the jury made mistakes, and our client deserves a new trial.  it does happen occasionally. 

I like to think we will have made it a close(er) call, we essentially just wrote our appeal too, and if it is not this case, some of the material I drafted, particularly on an insidious defense and distraction technique called "known risks" or "recognized complications" of surgery, may eventually in time be swept into the dustbin of history where it belongs.  It is the idea that when a dr. (surgeon in our case) makes a mistake and cuts an artery, if this is something the profession recognizes as an unavoidable occurrence that can happen, then it can serve as a rebuttal to negligent conduct.

Today, I have one motion to do on another case, and then am going home at 5 to crash.  I could use a little more consistent routine, and less drama, but I have to admit, this work makes it worth getting up in the morning.  I did not ever think I would be back in a job where I could hone and use a creative analytical writing ability and push the envelope to actually work changes in the law.  We did this recently, and over time will again. 

There is something about the writing process that I find deeply satisfying, maybe even strangely calming about life, like an illusion that given enough time and effort, I can reduce and rationalize virtually anything, no matter how seemingly complex and chaotic, and there is a certain symmetry to this.  A sense that it can be understood, answered, controlled even, and in that sense, made right.  It's just a feeling, an illusion, literally paper-thin.  But it's better than anything else.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just kind of fun, on this issue of recognized complications. 

It's an excerpt from the 3,000 page trial transcript where my boss is attempting to get into evidence dictionary and an authoritative medical dictionary definition of this term.  Unsuccessfully, even though Defendants used several learned treatises in their cross examination of our expert witnesses.

Although I think he articulates it well, it points out that a fair part of my job has been to take the arguments and concepts, understand and analyze them, and then turn them into more persuasive prose in our written briefs.

Neil Freund is a great lawyer (very similar to my old boss 15 years ago), and our chief nemesis.  He and my boss have a healthy disdain for each other.

MR. BRANNON:  So, ladies and gentlemen, one last thing. We went on and on yesterday. I didn't mention it, and they mentioned it and so on about some words. Remember me talking to you about Humpty Dumpty and Lewis Carroll and so on? So I went and got some definitions out of Merriam Webster's Dictionary and Stedman's Dictionary, a medical dictionary that's well-received --
MR. FREUND: I object.
MR. BRANNON: I'll bet they do.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BRANNON: No, wait a minute. These are -- these are --
THE COURT: This is not evidence.
MR. BRANNON: Well, it's certainly definitions of words.
THE COURT: Is this something that you want to prove?
MR. BRANNON: Yes. It's Stedman's. That's going to be a learned treatise. So is Merriam Webster. Those are both learned treatises. Who is going to deny that Merriam Webster has a better definition --
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BRANNON: -- than they do?
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
MR. BRANNON: All right. Can we speak, then, before we get back in?
THE COURT: Um-hum.
MR. BRANNON: You decide what the words mean. Don't get them twisted. I was going to you from a couple of good dictionaries, what these complications, risk of surgery, assumption of risk, recognized complications. By whom? Not the patient. But every doctor that has no defense comes in and offers evidence that that word, those words, mean that they get a get-out-of-jail card, that they don't hold recountable -- you don't hold them accountable.
And she's not going to jail. She's not going to get her license revoked. She's not going to get anything like that. Neither is the hospital. But they've learned that they don't have to be accountable or responsible, that they can convince you that there's some kind of magic, for them, where there is no magic for the patient, that they can use a word and that word can mean just what they want it to mean and not the truth. It really bothers me. You can tell that when I was examining, and I maybe examined too much in a couple places.
And I don't say that as well or articulate that well, but when I see that, I'm going to try to do something in the future that makes me a little better prepared for that. But it bothers me when people saying things instead of give you evidence, when they say a word means just what they want it to.
Nobody assumed getting her vein cut and held for an hour. Our client didn't. Nobody was informed that was a risk. And

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so my boss called from Florida, as he does, and started talking to me about our filing of this brief, his baby, in his usual stream of consciousness.

I said something about the doctrine of known risk or "recognized complications" of surgery as a rebuttal defense to harm caused by doctors that would otherwise be negligence, and I said it's kind of like a "strict defense."  There's no such thing, I was playing off of the idea of strict liability, which is liability without fault, for abnormally or inherently dangerous activities, think blasting, or some products liability.  Almost all tort/personal injury law is based on some degree of fault, whether intentional, purposeful, reckless, negligent, or breaching some other legally recognized duty.  Fault is the basis for responsibility in our legal system in both civil tort and criminal law (there are some strict liability crimes, but rare).  Not strict liability.

Strict liability is constituted by showing:

  1. defendant did something inherently or abnormally dangerous (some act, even if they just had something on their property); 
  2. that the dangerous condition caused plaintiff's harm; and 
  3. real harm/damages

There is no breach of a duty involved.  So this defense of literally just ascribing a name, "recognized complication" to surgery doesn't really describe anything in reality, except that, well, this kind of bad result sometimes happens - sometimes (too often) surgeons cut veins and shatter a person's life.  (I"m not unsympathetic to the astounding difficulty of their jobs; but as a matter of policy, I do not think the patient ought to pay for it - the malpractice insurance carrier should).

So Dwight liked the sound of this "strict defense" thing I made up, so much, that he asked me to write and submit a supplemental brief on it.  I needed that like a kick in the balls, but at least the idea might be good.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hate how this formats (and realize it's probably only interesting to me), but here is my attempt in our brief to synthesize and recontextualize what "recognized complication" of surgery means - which, in my view, is nothing at all.  My first draft called it a "doctrine of confusion," and indeed it is.  It's a get out of tort free card.  And its funny, over time, more and more things seem to become a "recognized complication."  Gee, I wonder why.  

 

In their responses, all Defendants argue in defense of their use, ad nauseam at trial of the term, “complication of surgery.” (Miller Response, at pp. 2, 3); (MVH & PHP Memo in Opp., at pp. 8-11). Defendants insist that known risks and complications of surgery in general, and specifically, the severing of the iliac vein during a sacrocolpopexy can occur, at the surgeon’s hand, and still be within the standard of care and in the absence of negligence. (Id.). This is misleading in that it ignores that there was evidence of negligence in the form of expert testimony. It further ignores that although injuries to veins and bleeding may be a recognized complication, it is also well recognized that surgeons must confine themselves in any case to the operative field and not stray from it into a body cavity where they have no business being.


The case of Austin v. Kaufman, 203 Ga.App. 704, 705, 417 S.E.2d 660 (1992) is illustrative of this well recognized medical principle. In Austin, during a surgery for a herniated disk, the surgeon severed the plaintiff’s iliac vein. Id. The jury reached a verdict for plaintiffs, after which defendants were granted a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, based in part on their assertion that plaintiffs resorted to a theory of res ipsa loquitur, which is not applicable in medical malpractice cases in Georgia. Id. The Court of Appeals of Georgia reversed, stating:


During the trial of the case, plaintiffs' expert witness testified on direct examination that, during a procedure of this kind, there is an implied requirement that the surgeon confine himself to the operative field and not stray from the field of surgery into a body cavity where he has no business being. From this testimony, the parameters of acceptable professional conduct for this procedure were clearly established -- a doctor should not stray from the operative field and enter the abdominal cavity where he can injure the patient's vascular system. The expert witness also testified that in his opinion Dr. Kaufman deviated from the applicable standard of care.


Austin v. Kaufman, 203 Ga.App. 704, 705, 417 S.E.2d 660 (1992) (emphasis added).

 

At trial, Mr. Brannon attempted to explore this very point, beginning during voir dire:
Q: If you go into a surgery, would you think it's a risk of surgery that they cut a major vein or artery as part of the surgery when it's not in the field of surgery?
MS. BOCKELMAN: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. BRANNON: Well, Your Honor, I'd like to undo some of that harm.
THE COURT: I think you're crossing into the line of --
MR. BRANNON: All right.
THE COURT: -- argumentative and --
MR. BRANNON: All right.


(Tr. Vol. 2, p. 246). Plaintiff’s counsel sought to ask and begin to educate the jurors about a legal theory Defendants were using relative to the standard of care, but was prevented from doing so when the Court sustained defense’s objection. In contrast, counsel for Defendant Miller went into lengthy narrative conversation with the jury about veins and arteries being in close proximity to the surgical field:


But at the sacral promontory, okay, there are vessels, there are arteries, there are veins, there are vessels called the sacral plexus vessels. And there are a lot of arteries and veins in there. The iliac arteries and veins are also in close proximity to the surgical field. Okay?


(Tr. Vol. 3, p. 483). Mr. Welch went on for about a full page and a half in the transcript in the same line of exposition, without even asking a question and without the Court curbing his speech. Finally, Mr. Brannon objected, but the Court overruled it. The point is straight forward. This was not fair to Ms. Hoke.


1. Defendant’s use of “recognized complication” was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial.
In the strum and drang of this argumentation about “recognized complications,” something important is undoubtedly lost. First, under Evid. R. 702(A), a recognized complication of surgery is easily within the ability and experience possessed by lay persons to understand. Rasalan v. TJX Operating Cos., 129 Ohio App.3d 364, 369, 717 N.E.2d 1123 (9th Dist.1998) (“According to Evid.R. 702(A), an expert witness' testimony must either relate[] to matters beyond the knowledge or experience possessed by the lay person or dispel[] a misconception common among lay persons.”) (quotes omitted). But more importantly, the term is not relevant, legally or logically. It has no legal significance, except to confuse. It is a term used in medicine to obviate liability in difficult situations where harm is physically caused by human action. Regardless, expert testimony about any “recognized complication,” as with any other subject, must be “based on scientifically valid principles and methods.” Valentine v. Conrad, 110 Ohio St.3d 42, 2006-Ohio-3561, 850
8
N.E.2d 683, ¶ 16; Williams v. Cook, 132 Ohio App.3d 444, 447, 725 N.E.2d 339 (3d Dist.1999). The use of known risk or recognized complication is arbitrary and not based on any reliable scientific method, and in any case, certainly not one demonstrated in this trial.


Second, Ohio Evid. R. 401 defines relevant evidence as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Neither informed consent nor strict liability were at issue here. The fact that a complication was a known complication is an irrelevant consideration because it does not make the issue of negligence more or less likely. All that was relevant is whether Defendants acted negligently in a way that caused Ms. Hoke’s injury. The answer stands or falls entirely apart from “recognized complication.” As such, use of the term was clearly intended to confuse the jury by distracting from the essential issue. And it did. There is no other reason to have used the term at all.


Plaintiffs have argued against use of the term “recognized complication of surgery” itself in general. But regardless of whether it is confusing in every case (a matter the court need not decide here), it certainly was in this case, where it had nothing to do with anything at issue. It did not tend “to make the existence of any fact that [wa]s of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than” it otherwise would have been. It literally failed to meet any definition of relevance.


The inherent unfairness and deceptive purpose of known risks and complications is that it wrongfully forces a plaintiff to prove a negative, which is an impossible task. It is also subjective. The Plaintiff could never disprove the subjective risk or complication of surgery was an affirmative cause. “Complications of surgery” is a subjective standard where no facts establish it was a complication. Indeed the injury itself raises an inference of negligence under the definition of medical malpractice. Physical facts trump the lack of physical evidence. Rasalan, supra, 129 Ohio App.3d at 370, 717 N.E.2d 1123.

Medical negligence in Ohio is already well defined as a showing “first, that defendant was unskillful or negligent; and, second, that his want of skill or care caused injury to the plaintiff.” Bruni v. Tatsumi, 46 Ohio St.2d 127, 130, 346 N.E.2d 673 (1976) ("Proof of malpractice, in effect, requires two evidentiary steps: evidence as to the recognized standard of the medical community in the particular kind of case, and a showing that the physician in question negligently departed from this standard in his treatment of plaintiff…” (quoting Davis v. Virginian Ry. Co. (1960), 361 U.S. 354, 357). Accordingly, “[t]he law imposes on physicians engaged in the practice of medicine a duty to employ that degree of skill, care and diligence that a physician or surgeon of the same medical specialty would employ in like circumstances.” Berdyck v. Shinde, 66 Ohio St.3d 573, 579, 1993-Ohio-183, 613 N.E.2d 1014. This standard is well-settled and will not bear additional terminology such as “recognized complication” or “known risk” to confuse the issue.


R.C. 2305.113 similarly defines a “Medical claim” as one “that is asserted in any civil action against a physician…and that arises out of the medical diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person…result[ing] form acts or omissions in providing medical care.” In 2004, the Ohio General Assembly also passed an “I’m sorry” statute shielding physicians from liability for any statements of apology to patients or survivors for “unanticipated outcomes of medical care.” R.C. 2317.43(A). The statute defines “Unanticipated outcome” [to] mean[] the outcome of a medical treatment or procedure that differs from an expected result.” Terminology form any of these sources could presumably have been used in relation to negligence without perverting the proper standard of care. This is because they are the law. “Recognized complication” is not the law in relation to the standard of care to which trained physicians must adhere to avoid medical negligence. Defendants’ incessant use of the phrase to conflate the correct standard of care was improper. The Court’s allowance of it was error.


2. Use of the irrelevant term, “recognized complication,” ad nauseam was confusing, misleading, inadmissible, and unfairly prejudicial.


Defendant MVH contends the Witzman case stands for the proposition that “a complication of surgery’ defense is proper to rebut the negligence element of a medical malpractice claim.” (Defendant MVH’s Responsive Memo, 8). But this does not excuse negligence. Because “recognized complication” had absolutely no probative value whatsoever, Defendants’ constant use of the term was also “substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, of confusion of the issues, or of misleading the jury,” in violation of Ohio Evid. R. 403(A). Except it was actually worse than this. Rule 403(A) excludes evidence even though it is otherwise relevant. Here, this canard of “recognized complications” never had any relevance to begin with; it was always, ever, only a smokescreen.


The caselaw, as applied to this jury trial, demonstrates why the term, “recognized complication” was totally irrelevant and inadmissible. A physician can cause his or her patient to suffer a “recognized complication” of a medical procedure by failing to meet the appropriate standard of care. Kurzer v. Sanders, 89 Ohio App. 3d 674 (1st Dist. 1993). See Lewis v. Toledo Hosp., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1171, 2004-Ohio-3154. “The occurrence of a recognized complication does not necessarily preclude a finding the doctor was negligent.” De Bourbon v. State Med. Bd. of Ohio, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 17AP-769, 2018-Ohio-4682, ¶ 13, citing See Estate of Hall v. Akron Gen. Med. Ctr., 125 Ohio St.3d 300, 2010-Ohio-1041, ¶ 34, 927 N.E.2d 1112 (Even though all of the experts agreed the plaintiff's injury was a known complication of the medical procedure, they differed on whether the surgeon was negligent); Lewis v. Toledo Hosp., 6th Dist. No. L-03-1171, 2004-Ohio-3154, ¶ 18 (even though all of the experts agreed the plaintiff's injury was a recognized complication and known risk of the medical procedure, the surgeon could still be found negligent if the injury was a direct result of the failure to do what a surgeon of ordinary skill, care, and diligence would have done under like or similar circumstances). Because “recognized complications” do not necessarily obviate negligence, and do not excuse negligence, they are a canard, serving only to cloud both the law and fact-finding in medical malpractice cases.


“Recognized complications” can occur regardless of whether a physician conforms to or violate the appropriate standard of care. Thus Defendants’ inordinate time and energy spent establishing that the injury Mrs. Hoke suffered is a “recognized complication” of the surgery did not make it any more or less likely that Dr. Miller committed malpractice. It is not actually relevant. And irrelevant evidence is inadmissible. The defense wrongfully utilized this complication as an excuse or complete defense to the negligence of Dr. Miller. It simply confused the trier of fact into thinking that liability does not attach to “recognized complications,” even when the tortfeasor failed to meet the standard of care. (Tr. Vol. 2, p. 355).


Plaintiff’s counsel repeatedly objected to use of the term at trial, and was rebuffed. (Tr. Vol. 2, p. 161, 355, 362, 364, Vol. 7, p. 1094, Vol. 8, p. 1185-1187, 1202, vol. 11, p. 1596-1597, Vol. 12, p. 1679, 1767, Vol. 15, p. 2116, 2120-2121, Vol. 16, p. 2294, 2298-2300, 2303-2304, 2336, Vol. 18, p. 2676, Vol. 19, p. 2774, 2813). Indeed, closing arguments of Dr. Miller’s counsel prejudicially emphasized this non-defense. (Tr. 3004, 3005, 3007). The defense confused the jury with the unlawful concept that complication and risk of surgery were the standard of care – the rule and not the exception. Beyond that, use of the term, evidence for it, repeatedly emphasizing it, were all completely irrelevant and thus inadmissible. According to the ruling in Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451, 633 N.E.2d 532 (1994), the trial court should have excluded any testimony that Mrs. Hoke’s injury is a “recognized complication” of the surgery.


Defendants both rely on Witzman v. Adam, 2011-Ohio 379, ¶ 70 (2nd Dist. Jan 28, 2011), and both Defendants likewise assert that they are correctly applying the case while Plaintiffs have misinterpreted and misrepresented it. (MVH & PHP Memo in Opp., at p 8); (Miller Response, at pp. 2, 3). Both Defendants, however, insist that there is a clear line of delineation and distinction between a recognized complication of surgery versus the standard of care that constitutes medical negligence, and that the one does not have to do with the other. See, Id. They ignore that the Witzman case itself, however, states: “The idea of a ‘recognized complication’ refers to the expert testimony that it is recognized that severe non-negligent injury to that nerve occurs in a small percentage of cases.” Id. (emphasis added). The buzzword either has some rational relation to negligence, or it does not. If it does relate, then it is incumbent upon medical malpractice defendants and the courts to explain exactly how it relates. When they do, they will realize in fact the term is meaningless except as a fiction to misdirect juries from the only relevant inquiry: did the defendant’s conduct resulting in injury fall below the standard of care of a surgeon of ordinary skill, care, and diligence would have done under like or similar circumstances.


This above confusion illustrates a compelling reason to permanently retire the use of the terms “known risk” or “recognized complication” of medical procedures, especially outside of the context of informed consent and strict liability. The terms create a perverse incentive in the following way. If otherwise negligent conduct and ensuing harm can be defrayed semantically by mere use of a term, ‘known’ or ‘recognized’ ‘complication,’ it would stand to reason that over time, more and more ‘complications’ would come to be known by the medical profession as ‘known’ and ‘recognized.’ What else do the words mean, but that bad results occur and are excused as unavoidable? And, not surprisingly, this has come to pass as they have Imagine a general equivalent argument for attorneys, claiming for example, that missing statutes of limitation is a well-known complication and risk in litigation (it is after all), and sometimes missing them is unavoidable. Or for accountants arguing that math errors are well-known risks and complications of income tax preparation. Certainly, neither profession could accept these, and if they did, no professional standard of care would be left remaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah... it's like saying that if I drive a car, then it's a known risk that there may be other drivers who are DUI and therefore if they crash into my car, then it doesn't matter, cos I was already aware that some people do DUI, even if they're not supposed to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sophy said:

Yah... it's like saying that if I drive a car, then it's a known risk that there may be other drivers who are DUI and therefore if they crash into my car, then it doesn't matter, cos I was already aware that some people do DUI, even if they're not supposed to.

Right.  I actually used the auto accident negligence analogy in a supplemental brief to explain the absurdity of using "recognized complication or known risk" of surgery to defeat negligence.  Everyone knows driving is a known risk.  And that has absolutely nothing to do with whether another driver was negligent in hitting you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today I feel like a real lawyer, again for the first time, kinda.

That's as close to a Pinocchio homage as I dare go.

During law school, I had, in some ways, an overabundance of confidence.  I think it was always tempered by the humility of how hard and much the work was, and by so many other talented, extremely hard working students around me.  There was competition aplenty.  

But sometime soon after I started practicing, I began to feel way in over my head and an impostor.  Looking back this makes really easy sense.  I had just graduated.  I didn't know then, what I do now, that every law school graduate knows almost 'nothing' about actually practicing law because law schools don't actually do too great a job in teaching you that.  Do do that, you have to, well, obviously, practice.  And, the firm where I worked was, and probably still is, about the top complex litigation firm in town - they recruit top lawyers to do really high-end, sophisticated, commercial litigation on a massive scale.  I took for granted that of course I "should" be able to walk in and do it too.  And I did I guess for 4 years, but I felt increasingly that I was an impostor.  I also know now, that nearly everyone feels that way at times, and many (perhaps even most) people feel that way most of the time.

Anyway, I've jumped back in and been so busy in the 9 months I've been back, that only now can I look back and realize I've moved way up the curve quickly in capably executing a variety of legal skills I hadn't practiced in years.  The written work has gotten progressively better on increasingly challenging cases and areas of law.  And I have even gotten significantly faster already, which is the key.

I successfully lost a trial (and there weren't' any shame in that one), and have competently handled a number of other hearings.  I still get nervous when I go to court, but have better learned how to prepare, talk and think on my feet and manage it, and even enjoy it after the first couple minutes.  I've also learned how to better handle clients, including not explaining everything, and acting confident, even when I have 50 questions swirling myself.  It doesn't help a client at all, for me to be wondering allowed about things I don't know the answer to.  That's what research is for.

I'm wrapping up a flurry of high-quality work that has met deadlines without extensions over the last 3 weeks or so.  Now, I have to get serious about working on my time and self-management so I'm not here 80 hours per week - that has a limited half-life, and it won't hold up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is so great to read ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Remember how I said about 6 months ago that eventually you'd get into the "meta level" stuff of being good at your profession...?

That you would start seeing the forest, not just the trees?

That stuff would start falling into place...

And some stuff would start happening automatically...

So that each-and-every task would no longer seem like a big, confusing riddle to solve?

Seeing you write the above makes me think that yessssssssss... welcome to the first stage of that! 🙂

It's like you've run the first leg of a marathon... Gotten into the flow of it... And now you can have a rest at the top of the mountain... And see how far you've come...

Of course, work will still be hard work... And of course there will be new and different challenges too.

But that basic sense of proficiency... That sense of feeling competent cos your brain "gets" what you are doing...

That's such a relief and such a game changer.

And, umm, yeah... No wonder you felt hopelessly overwhelmed as a rookie 🙂

And yeah, I get how that can be horrifically unsettling and make you question yourself and life and everything.

So how wonderful that some pieces of the puzzle are now falling into place and you can feel differently and better not only about the work you are doing now, but also look back with a compassionate and forgiving gaze on your struggles back then.

Very happy for you!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

(((hug)))

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Sophy said:

This is so great to read ❤️❤️❤️❤️

Remember how I said about 6 months ago that eventually you'd get into the "meta level" stuff of being good at your profession...?

That you would start seeing the forest, not just the trees?

That stuff would start falling into place...

And some stuff would start happening automatically...

So that each-and-every task would no longer seem like a big, confusing riddle to solve?

Seeing you write the above makes me think that yessssssssss... welcome to the first stage of that! 🙂

It's like you've run the first leg of a marathon... Gotten into the flow of it... And now you can have a rest at the top of the mountain... And see how far you've come...

Of course, work will still be hard work... And of course there will be new and different challenges too.

But that basic sense of proficiency... That sense of feeling competent cos your brain "gets" what you are doing...

That's such a relief and such a game changer.

And, umm, yeah... No wonder you felt hopelessly overwhelmed as a rookie 🙂

And yeah, I get how that can be horrifically unsettling and make you question yourself and life and everything.

So how wonderful that some pieces of the puzzle are now falling into place and you can feel differently and better not only about the work you are doing now, but also look back with a compassionate and forgiving gaze on your struggles back then.

Very happy for you!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂 🙂

(((hug)))

 

Thank you, yah, I think that's about right.

My natural predilection is to now think and focus on why the f*#k I can't get it done faster now, and more perfectly...which I've been ruminating on a bit.  And then I have to pause for a moment, accept, let the judgment pass or at least subside a little, and remember, no, this is goooooooooddddd...  Don't question it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the awful para-person (I think I'll play with that as a pejorative)  just exploded at me again; emailed 3 times and then stormed into my office and yelled at me for 5 minutes, because she's stupid. I'd already checked with the Senior partner on the case who told me to email the prosecutor and other attorneys on the case, and she did not understand that I had found new evidence, which I'd given to Sr. Associate to give to her (It's just easier that way).  She looked stupid and then just stood there babbling and yelling idiotic arguments for 5 minutes, while I had to parry them.  I push back on her now when she does this, because otherwise she'll just trample people. 

It raises my blood pressure and anxiety a lot, really spikes it up.  I'll tell myself that it's good courtroom practice, and also that it's a good reason to settle in tonight with a nice indica and maybe bourbon blend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, gandolfication said:

Thank you, yah, I think that's about right.

My natural predilection is to now think and focus on why the f*#k I can't get it done faster now, and more perfectly...which I've been ruminating on a bit.  And then I have to pause for a moment, accept, let the judgment pass or at least subside a little, and remember, no, this is goooooooooddddd...  Don't question it.

Yeah... Well in six months from now, you'll be celebrating reaching the stage 2 milestone... And you'll say "Wow, I can finally do things at a speed that feels appropriate now"

The only way to get there is to go *through* the process, unfortunately.

And the process is blood, sweat and tears, a lot of the time.

But there are good days too.

And it feels like a lot of up and down... often you can't "feel" the progress at all.

But it is happening... And at some point, you just reach the next level of the computer game.

Cos you collected enough points and tools and skills.

And you will be sooooooooooo deservedly proud of yourself for having put in the huge slog that it took to get there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2019 at 1:22 PM, gandolfication said:

So the awful para-person (I think I'll play with that as a pejorative)  just exploded at me again; emailed 3 times and then stormed into my office and yelled at me for 5 minutes, because she's stupid. I'd already checked with the Senior partner on the case who told me to email the prosecutor and other attorneys on the case, and she did not understand that I had found new evidence, which I'd given to Sr. Associate to give to her (It's just easier that way).  She looked stupid and then just stood there babbling and yelling idiotic arguments for 5 minutes, while I had to parry them.  I push back on her now when she does this, because otherwise she'll just trample people. 

It raises my blood pressure and anxiety a lot, really spikes it up.  I'll tell myself that it's good courtroom practice, and also that it's a good reason to settle in tonight with a nice indica and maybe bourbon blend.

Hey @gandolfication, it sounds like you are handling things pretty well.  Gosh man, I am sorry that you have to work with that female dog.  I almost (looking back I would have done it) filed a restraining order on a female coworker about 13 years ago.  As she was habitually violating my boundaries. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2019 at 12:47 AM, Rattler6 said:

Hey @gandolfication, it sounds like you are handling things pretty well.  Gosh man, I am sorry that you have to work with that female dog.  I almost (looking back I would have done it) filed a restraining order on a female coworker about 13 years ago.  As she was habitually violating my boundaries. 

A restraining order against a coworker.  That's an interesting matter.  It would presumably require a transfer or termination.  I like the idea.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JD4010 said:

@gandolfication Indica has quite literally saved my life. My anxiety level is very much reduced and I can actually sleep at night. It also has helped me regain the ability to laugh.

I think what I have now has more of an indica strain than my normal residue.  Which is good ('cept its not as good for working out in the morning, not that that I've been doing that enough).

I would like something like this to use for winding down and sleeping - I remember that back in the day, it use to help me sleep sometimes, although mostly when I feel relaxed, and good, I want to stay up and do things.  I find it hard to actually reliably get something that is indica, probably because over the years, plants have been cross-bread so much, there is legitimate debate about how much and whether there really even are clear strains of one or the other, but also because without access to a real dispensary, it proves perpetually hard for a supplier to have real selection or even know what they have.

Anyway, I'm still on my eventual quest to try some other shrubs more of the mushroom variety, although not for sleep purposes.  : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gandolfication said:

A restraining order against a coworker.  That's an interesting matter.  It would presumably require a transfer or termination.  I like the idea.  

Looking back I would have done it but she was out of state and it would have needed to be filled in her home county from what I understood.  I probably could have gotten the necessary info from my boss and then gone into the court house. 

These days if you are a guy and a lady/girl is being a problem I would go ahead and file a restraining order.  Things can escalate and the court (seems to) favor women and girls over men and boys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/7/2019 at 4:49 PM, Sophy said:

Yeah... Well in six months from now, you'll be celebrating reaching the stage 2 milestone... And you'll say "Wow, I can finally do things at a speed that feels appropriate now"

The only way to get there is to go *through* the process, unfortunately.

And the process is blood, sweat and tears, a lot of the time.

But there are good days too.

And it feels like a lot of up and down... often you can't "feel" the progress at all.

But it is happening... And at some point, you just reach the next level of the computer game.

Cos you collected enough points and tools and skills.

And you will be sooooooooooo deservedly proud of yourself for having put in the huge slog that it took to get there.

Yeah, that sounds right.

I had another good day yesterday, getting a very good response done in 1 day.  It had a few dumb typos when we filed it, other that was as much the fault of the senior associate proofing and reviewing it as mine.  But, while I never like to have errors, I've also told myself correctly I think that filing substantially good documents on time and without all nighters is better than having letter perfect documents but an unrealizable standard of perfection The drives me nuts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rattler6 said:

Looking back I would have done it but she was out of state and it would have needed to be filled in her home county from what I understood.  I probably could have gotten the necessary info from my boss and then gone into the court house. 

These days if you are a guy and a lady/girl is being a problem I would go ahead and file a restraining order.  Things can escalate and the court (seems to) favor women and girls over men and boys.

Wow.  Whoever this person was, they must've been a menace to be harassing you from out of state.  That'd've been a tall order legally.

No question the vast majority of these are filed by women against men (though by no means all).  Yah, I would say that a court would humanly apply some modicum of higher threshold for a man asking against a woman, because of the general stereotype that is usually true that (other things equal and all caveats, etc.), men typically have greater physical strength and I'd say more importantly, are simply more prone to physical aggression and violence.  Plenty of exceptions of course.
 

In my experience and view, courts are too reluctant to grant these for women or men.  Actually, in most states, it is relatively easy to get the initial, ex parte (where the defendant does not have a right to be present or heard) temporary restraining order; but then, there is a second hearing where the defendant does have a right to be present and heard, and the standard to keep it in place is much tougher, usually (and I think stupidly) requiring at least 2 incidents closely related in time to show some degree of pattern of actions that makes the plaintiff reasonably fear for their physical and/or mental/emotional safety.  So, a conniving offender can avoid this by either not making their actions so egregious as to cause fear to one's safety, and/or by not doing 2+ acts closely related in time (which usually means days or weeks, but not months).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/12/2019 at 8:31 AM, gandolfication said:

Anyway, I'm still on my eventual quest to try some other shrubs more of the mushroom variety, although not for sleep purposes.  : )

Same here. Might have to road trip it to Denver, CO. I wanted to make this reply yesterday but the forum seemed to be down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, JD4010 said:

Same here. Might have to road trip it to Denver, CO. I wanted to make this reply yesterday but the forum seemed to be down.

maybe I'll join you.  could be a fun foray into pharmaceutical fact finding, along with a colorful experience on the mountains skiing or hiking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gandolfication said:

maybe I'll join you.  could be a fun foray into pharmaceutical fact finding, along with a colorful experience on the mountains skiing or hiking.

Yes, a "colorful experience". 🙂

I've been wanting to make a road trip for the longest time...4 years in a row now...but I keep running out of dough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...