Dr./RX/Hosp. or state DOT responsibilities?

[McBryar]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?
Nevada

A regular passenger vehicle operator with a previously revoked operators license for a similar and previous situation of loss of consciousness involving himself and a st. light pole, got his license RE-instated only to continue to undergo med. treatment from a local hosp. which lead to a second "blackout" in which the the operator lost control, accelerated, killed a bicycle commuter in the correct riding form and location.
Operator was clearly unconscious, the vehicle stopped only after shearing off a 18" palm and knocking a second over, no brake or skid marks were evident.
Operator was checked over by law enforcement for alcohol, drugs, etc. treated for minor injuries and released at the scene...I presume to a "responsible" party.
Is this drivers treaty facility or physician or pharm - a responsible party ?

[justalayman]

is this a homework question?

Sure sounds like one.

[ecmst12]

Very unlikely, in any event.

[McBryar]

NO, its not a homework question, Does it matter?
If this is too hard of a question then "man-up" and stop wasting our collective time, if not lets hear what you have to say!

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by McBryar

NO, its not a homework question, Does it matter?
If this is too hard of a question then "man-up" and stop wasting our collective time, if not lets hear what you have to say!

Yes, it does matter.
Why don't you go pay a lawyer to answer your questions.

[lealea1005]

Originally Posted by McBryar

NO, its not a homework question, Does it matter?
If this is too hard of a question then "man-up" and stop wasting our collective time, if not lets hear what you have to say!

yes, that's right. Rudeness always gets you the help you're looking for.


ETA: What was the condition that caused the loss of consciousness? (and, yes, there is a reason I'm asking)

[McBryar]

Rudeness works both ways folks, you don't - [well at least I know I wouldn't- but I'm not associated with any legal "field" either...]just come off the cuff and state "gee this looks like some clowns' homework question.. and then to say "'very unlikely, in any event' - what a jackass" How insulting... Does it escape imagination that perhaps I am a relative to the person that was killed in the event I originally described? Where does callous language start?

I don't know the exact treatment the driver was undergoing...

Zinger, like I said.

[ecmst12]

It is very unlikely that anyone other then God and the driver himself can be blamed for the accident, but you would need to know the specific condition to find out of any exceptions. Even if the DOT should have suspended his license, they can't be held responsible for the accident. If he was undergoing treatment, then it was presumably IMPROVING his condition. If on the day of the accident, he received a treatment that would have impaired his ability to stay conscious, and the doctor did not advise him of this fact, then there is a small possibility that the doctor could be held responsible, but again the exact specifics would be needed to know.

If someone has a seizure, their license is supposed to be suspended (in my state) until the person has been seizure free for 6 months. If they are seizure free for 6 months, get their license back and start driving again, then they have another seizure, causing an accident, neither the doctor nor the DMV NOR THE DRIVER did anything wrong (though the driver will still be at fault for the accident).

[lealea1005]

Originally Posted by McBryar

Rudeness works both ways folks, you don't - [well at least I know I wouldn't- but I'm not associated with any legal "field" either...]just come off the cuff and state "gee this looks like some clowns' homework question.. and then to say "'very unlikely, in any event' - what a jackass" How insulting... Does it escape imagination that perhaps I am a relative to the person that was killed in the event I originally described? Where does callous language start?

I don't know the exact treatment the driver was undergoing...

Zinger, like I said.

That is important information required to give you an accurate answer.

No one called you a clown or a jackass. Did you expect us to just "know" you had a relationship with one of the people described in your post? It did look an awful lot like homework.

[lya]

I do not know Nevada law or pretend to know Nevada law, so I am answering only with knowledge of Georgia and North Carolina law.

The DOT will only accept a letter from the treating physician as reason/proof of need to withdraw driving privileges. Perhaps the physician should have sent such a letter.

Keep in mind, though, that what seems like "most" persons with revoked driving privileges continue to drive, anyway. Also, keep in mind that the DOT may not have had time to act on the receipt of such a letter.

I think the burden would be to prove that the primary treating physician knew or should have known that the driver's condition posed a serious danger/risk to himself/herself and others and failed to act in the required manner.

If the original poster is saying that the driver hit a street light pole (vs. a saint light pole, as I initially interpreted the abbreviation) while under treatment for a condition that causes unpredictable loss of consciousness and at the time of fatal accident was receiving continuing treatment for the same condition, I believe there is reason to investigate the claim.

The records would have to be expertly reviewed and, I anticipate, several of the healthcare providers would be interviewed.

Wrongful death suits usually have a shorter statute of limitations; therefore, I suggest that a qualifying person seek legal consultation as soon as possible.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by McBryar

"gee this looks like some clowns' homework question.. and then to say "'very unlikely, in any event' - what a jackass" .

I never called you a clown so YOU are the one with the name calling.

The reason I still believe it is homework is:

You start with:

A regular passenger vehicle operator

Who talks like that? A textbook is written like that though.

which lead to a second "blackout" in which the the operator lost control, accelerated, killed a bicycle commuter in the correct riding form and location.

Again, who talks like this; "a bicycle commuter in the correct riding form and location". You must be kidding.

Then, this guy is unconscious (first reason he would be taken to the hospital. Blacking out can be caused by a lot of reasons and it would not be proper to release such a patient)

Operator was checked over by law enforcement for alcohol, drugs, etc. treated for minor injuries and released at the scene

Minor injuries? He takes out a big ass tree and then nearly knocked over another and this guy has minor injuries and simply is released to "somebody" with no med treatment needed. Ya, right.

Oh, and this:

killed a bicycle commuter

So, where was the drug screen? This guy kills a guy, was unconcious at the scene and he is allowed to leave the scene without a check in the hospital for drugs or internal injuries?

I suppose it could really happen but I strongly doubt it.

Now feel free to call me a jackass or anything you want but I think this is still a BS post.

[lukebristol]

If he was taking medication that was clearly labeled "Do not drive or operate machinery while taking this medication", (aka Vicodin, percocet, valium, and a slew of other sedatives also known as prescription drugs) then he is completely responsible for the accident. If the medication he was given was not a sedative, I assume the doctors in the hospital were only trying to help him by prescribing a medication. That said, if he had a condition BEFORE he saw any doctor, the previously mentioned doctor cannot be held liable for a continuing condition. That is like saying a heart attack victim can sue his doctor because the medicine prescribed did not fully prevent a future heart attack. Medication is trial and error. Either way, I don't think he has much of a case. Depending on the specifics of the situation, he may not even be tried criminally - only in a civil sense - and his insurance should cover most of that.

I assume he had insurance.

That said, perhaps after blacking out the first time, it was the sole responsibility of the "regular passenger vehicle operator" to make the choice to not drive.

Though again, this is all common sense law, and I am not familiar at all with the specifics of the laws of your state. You can consult a lawyer for free in your area. Arguing with the members of the forum is futile and will give you no satisfaction or closure.

[McBryar]

I assumed this was a forum with sufficient experience in speaking to law enforcement types of facts and verbiage; that is why I was very succinct in the way I presented what I know.
It would seem strange to me that someone would come on this forum and present a school question, and if someone did, what difference would it make?

lealea-

Yes, driver was insured

Again, who talks like this; "a bicycle commuter in the correct riding form and location". You must be kidding.

So, where was the drug screen? This guy kills a guy, was unconcious at the scene and he is allowed to leave the scene without a check in the hospital for drugs or internal injuries?

thanks no, I wish I was kidding Justlayman, regardless, your looking for something that is irreverent to the issue there.

Now what IS interesting- like YOU say, is that the driver was allowed to walk. No blood testing, no further exam for drugs and/or alcohol, didn't hold or admit for O and T.... that just feels negligent somehow.... I completely agree.

LukeBristol- Why do you say that he may not be criminally held liable? I'm thinking a manslaughter #1 charge,, just for starters with the DA, esp. if it is determined that driver was 100% at fault, and further if operating the vehicle under an influence, or against med. recommendations, say after a treatment of some kind....

[ecmst12]

You have now entered the realm of pure speculation. Who are YOU in this situation anyway? Come back when you know what the diagnosis of the driver was, what medication or treatment he was on that might have impaired his ability to drive. NOTHING MORE can be determined without that information.

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by McBryar

I assumed this was a forum with sufficient experience in speaking to law enforcement types of facts and verbiage; that is why I was very succinct in the way I presented what I know.
It would seem strange to me that someone would come on this forum and present a school question, and if someone did, what difference would it make?

...

the terminology used is nothing I have heard short of reading it in a textbook. It is simply not a normal manner of speaking.

as to what diff does it make about homework?

Well, homework is for the student to learn. He doesn;t learn by somebody else doing it for him/her. The posters here utilize their experience, knowledge, intelligence and desire to assist those that truly do have problems. Only a lazy student would ask others to do their work.