Skip to main content

View Diary: Conservatives ginning up 'fake doctor's excuse' handout story at Wisconsin protests (222 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There was some question as to whether (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    erush1345

    the doctors were real, or were just a set-up to make protesters look bad, but...

    your statement simply isn't true unless

    a) the doctors are real, AND
    b) are practicing in accord with proper medical practices and within their ethical guidelines

    The reason is simple:

    The excuses have no value (and hence aren't needed) except to extract something of value from employers to which the holders of the excuse would not otherwise be entitled.

    The fraud might be civil instead of criminal (beats the crap out of me), but doctors are people, too, not some God-species immune to the limitations of law.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 04:47:18 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  What is this law you keep referencing? (0+ / 0-)

      What law has been broken?  None.  No law was broken.  Wishing does not make it so.  If you know otherwise, state the statute - but I know you can't because there is none.

      "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

      by Involuntary Exile on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 10:52:08 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And repeating something til you're blue in the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        erush1345

        face doesn't make it true, either.

        As I said, the fraud might be civil -- ie, conspiracy to defraud employers of wages and or benefits to which employees aren't entitled.

        That certainly would be actionable, whether or not illegal.

        There probably are questions of medical ethics as I can't imagine casually whipping out a bunch of medical excuses -- which are tantamount to diagnoses/prescriptions and thus are supposed to represent medical judgement don't trip over those.  I don't know if that is criminal, but it certainly would be subject to professional sanctions and maybe -- if things fell the wrong way for somebody -- danger of malpractice.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Feb 20, 2011 at 05:28:11 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are just guessing, and your guesses are (0+ / 0-)

          Incorrect.  The onus is on the employee, not the doctor, and furthermore, the employer has the right to (1) decline to accept the excuse, or (2) recover the sick pay if they later determine it was not legitimately due.  The latter is the remedy.  No civil action is needed.  The employer could also fire the employee for providing a fake excuse.   If brought to court such a case would be tossed out as without merit (not to mention how pissed off a judge would be to have his time wasted on a such a small claim that already had a built-in remedy).

          As for the doctor, the "excuses" are in fact not diagnoses, and even if they were, a misdiagnosis is not subject to professional sanctions.  It is totally stupid to claim they are.  If they were, every doctor in the country would be hauled in front of their licensing board with regularity.

          As for malpractice, that is totally laughable.  A patient has to demonstrate he was harmed.  Fat chance of that in the case of providing a "sick excuse."  In any case, the most the doctor would be liable for is one day's pay IF the "patient" could prove he had a reasonable expectation the sick pay would be granted.

          "I believe that ignorance is the root of all evil. And that no one knows the truth." - Molly Ivins

          by Involuntary Exile on Tue Feb 22, 2011 at 11:28:56 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site