Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do you have question marks? It's not hard to understand.
I just saw the headline but hadn't read the story yet. Seemed pretty obvious.Why do you have question marks? It's not hard to understand.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2019/...l&utm_campaign=pennlive_sf&utm_source=twitter
Interesting timing.
And interesting amount. $50,000????????? That's chump change.
This sounds like his idea of winning whether he wins the lawsuit or not. He doesn't give a sh!t about the money. He just wants to make sure he fu(ks up our season whether he wins the lawsuit or not.
So you already know that the doctor is the villain in this story?And interesting amount. $50,000????????? That's chump change.
This sounds like his idea of winning whether he wins the lawsuit or not. He doesn't give a sh!t about the money. He just wants to make sure he fu(ks up our season whether he wins the lawsuit or not.
A football coach and a team doctor disagreed on whether a player was ready to play. I'm shocked.
I believe it is for an amount in excess of $50,000, lawyers please respond. Doesn't this amount move you to a higher court?And interesting amount. $50,000????????? That's chump change.
This sounds like his idea of winning whether he wins the lawsuit or not. He doesn't give a sh!t about the money. He just wants to make sure he fu(ks up our season whether he wins the lawsuit or not.
who else would be?So you already know that the doctor is the villain in this story?
Yes, I am sure his main concern is the football team's success this year.
I can just imagine him sitting in his den thinking "You know, I will file a lawsuit just before the season and everyone will talk about me and the lawsuit and all 100 members of the football team, the coaches, the staff, the fans - their entire autumn will be ruined. Bwahahaha"
The lawyer. Without a doubt.who else would be?
Could he be connected to the "unsuccessful" first procedure done of Stevens?So you already know that the doctor is the villain in this story?
Yes, I am sure his main concern is the football team's success this year.
I can just imagine him sitting in his den thinking "You know, I will file a lawsuit just before the season and everyone will talk about me and the lawsuit and all 100 members of the football team, the coaches, the staff, the fans - their entire autumn will be ruined. Bwahahaha"
Could he be connected to the "unsuccessful" first procedure done of Stevens?
I didn't catch that number. yeah, ridiculously low. it would seem his agenda is to save face and/or cause trouble.And interesting amount. $50,000????????? That's chump change.
This sounds like his idea of winning whether he wins the lawsuit or not. He doesn't give a sh!t about the money. He just wants to make sure he fu(ks up our season whether he wins the lawsuit or not.
I believe it is for an amount in excess of $50,000, lawyers please respond. Doesn't this amount move you to a higher court?
Or Ellison Jordan. Or Shane Simmons.Could he be connected to the "unsuccessful" first procedure done of Stevens?
Ditto.As a physician myself, I would judge this as an odd move for him to take. There's more to this story.
Great! This will be like May 2013 all over again! (that is sarcasm, by the way)
Of course, we have Wayne Sebastianelli playing a role in both of these stories.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Why exactly did we bring him back again?
The timing and the amount of money lead me to believe that this is indeed a move to embarrass Franklin and others at PSU.Or Ellison Jordan. Or Shane Simmons.
I believe that Karen Peetz and Rod Erickson have already been mobilized to begin an apology tour.From the article:
"He is seeking more than $50,000 in damages from the university in his suit. He claims Penn State officials violated his rights as a whistleblower."
WHISTLEBLOWER. No doubt the doctor and his lawyers will consult with mcqueary to figure out how to get millions from Penn State. Based on history, it should not be too difficult.
I think that HIPAA law prevents disclosure of even the patient's name.The $50,000 number is just to keep the case out of Arbitration (small claims Court). It means nothing, really. Curious that the Complaint does not name the athletes allegedly involved....
got it....it is just a place holder. I mean, that 54 page claim would cost $50k. And after attorney fees and taxes, wouldn't buy him a new car. Often, claims like this are to get in a do discovery of emails. Once you have those, you can parse them any way you want to create a narrative (see JoePa and Freeh circa 2012).The $50,000 number is just to keep the case out of Arbitration (small claims Court). It means nothing, really. Curious that the Complaint does not name the athletes allegedly involved....
The $50,000 number is just to keep the case out of Arbitration (small claims Court). It means nothing, really. Curious that the Complaint does not name the athletes allegedly involved....
He reappears every now and then....like a wart.Look who just finished his morning meat pounding session.
Thanks for the post...makes complete sense. I wonder, too, if it qualifies for "whistleblower". It would seem the notion of if a player can or should continue to participate can be quite arbitrary.^This is correct. Unless there is a very specific and tangible amount owed (think of a breach of contract), it is very rare in PA to demand anything other than more than or less than the compulsory (mandatory) arbitration limits. So, for instance, if your demand is less than the arbitration limits ($50,000.00), then you are mandated, required, compelled (any other syn) to first arbitrate your case. If your demand is more, then you go right to a trial and skip over the arbitration. (Generally speaking)
I also agree that it is odd that there isn't any "player X" allegations. I would think if the case had A LOT of teeth, that you'd (not) see this complaint because it would be filed under seal for health privacy reasons and there would be specific allegations regarding John Doe football players' circumstances and CJF's moves to interfere.
Without those specific examples, it is going to likely be very matter of course for the Defendants to come up with examples: where they followed Dr. Lynch's recommendations, input, etc.; where they followed Dr. Lynch's recommendations, input, etc., in spite of contrary opinions (e.g. outside doctors); and (likely most importantly) where there are other factors, reasons, and bases for PSU to want to move on from Dr. Lynch.
At the same time, there is a reasonable probability/possibility that Dr. Lynch's allegations are correct and he is filing this lawsuit for all of the right reasons: e.g. to get PSU to implement a coherent, autonomous, policy that is devoid of any interference whatsoever (whether or not that is right or wrong). AND...Dr. Lynch, professionally and morally, does not want to get into outlining each and every instance of "Does" at this stage. He can always do that once it gets into the discovery stage.
I'd also note that there are no contractual counts (at least a breach of contract, tortious interference, or third party beneficiary claim). Instead they are in the form of whistleblower items. Whoever is the decider (e.g. HMC, PSU, etc.), if they had the contractual right to remove him, there's not much of a legal there-there. (Note: that's not to say that what he vaguely alleges isn't true).
In my mind, he'd really have to have at least one instance where his decision was overruled or interfered-with which led to a negative consequence for the player.
I still (without any evidence and with only suspicion) wonder whether there isn't more to the TS story of inside and outside doctors. Not blaming either side, but I just wonder.
He reappears every now and then....like a wart.
Thanks for the post...makes complete sense. I wonder, too, if it qualifies for "whistleblower". It would seem the notion of if a player can or should continue to participate can be quite arbitrary.
Great! This will be like May 2013 all over again! (that is sarcasm, by the way)
Of course, we have Wayne Sebastianelli playing a role in both of these stories.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Why exactly did we bring him back again?