Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBill100

I noticed that some of the names I included in a previous post have now been reduced to initials. I don't object, in fact it's a pretty good idea - but wonder how and why it occurred.

---

I requested that this change be made - read back and you'll see why I objected to proper names.

If I think you have mishandled a matter (or run me over with your car or whatever) I think it's inappropriate and actionable to put your name on the Internet for all to see. Maybe you're guilty, maybe you're not. It is also a mistake to "try" a case on the Internet, long before an Attorney has been consulted - but I've said that before. Attorneys and Courts are pulling up all sorts of info all the time. I wouldn't want to be cross examined on something I put on AMHD somewhere down the road.

If the coronor or assistant or whoever are guilty, fine, then let a newspaper report that. Until then it is a disservice to those very people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

I requested that this change be made - read back and you'll see why I objected to proper names...

If the coronor or assistant or whoever are guilty, fine, then let a newspaper report that. Until then it is a disservice to those very people.

---

I agree with your decision right up to the last paragraph. That people might be trolling for info is a concern because it could lead to disclosure of facts the OP wouldn't want disclosed at the present time.

As far as the coroner's office at large, they are a public agency responsible to the citizens and the proper subject of identification and open criticism. I, as a public citizen, need not prove the factual content of my complaint or accusation in order to express it publicly and I need not resort to a court of law each time I've dissatisfied with the conduct of public servants. I can assemble a group and march in front of their office with their names emblazoned on signs or I can assemble words and broadcast them in a public forum to the same extent. It is public opinion formed via individual expression that holds public agents and agencies accountable, to we the people. Not vice versa. There is nothing that office is doing, nor any action any agent of that office has undertaken, that is not in the public purview.

It is not a disservice to the public agents to be publicly identified with their conduct, good or bad. That's accountability, and it's the actions that ultimately accrue to the benefit or detriment of the identified party. If a citizen has a complaint they can express it openly and with particularity without fear of retribution.

Nonetheless, thank you for altering the names from the standpoint of benefit to the OP.

PS I hope this doesn't mean I can't come over and play with you guys and gals on the legal board anymore... I have some new toys... Ice cream

Hello again, Dr:

Law, as opposed to medicine, has a conflict built in. The idea is that GOOD law results when you have two ethical and competent attorneys arguing about what the same set of facts mean.

This wouldn't BE a legal board if we all agreed. Now, this isn't a courtroom, of course, but, good law still results from our legal wrangling. At least, that's the idea.

Besides, I think you argue guuud. So, come along and bring your toys. But, be prepared to be knocked around a little.

excon

This is a legal issue, not a moral issue, nothing for discussion. I'm an investigator. I'm telling you my experience and how it works.

You post that someone is incompetent or negligent, that person decides to take action and it will happen so fast that your head will spin. I'm not saying they will win - I'm saying YOU will pay to defend yourself.

And if you're wrong, if this entire thread can be explained away - I see problems.

I realize that you don't but this is what I do for a living.

Also like to point out that we can assist an OP to a point with some good advice, but we also have to be congnizant of how our opinions and answers effect AMHD on a whole, that is, as you know, goes without saying in lieu of what has happened before.

Tick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

Also like to point out that we can assist an OP to a point with some good advice, but we also have to be congnizant of how our opinions and answers effect AMHD on a whole, that is, as you know, goes without saying in lieu of what has happened before.

tick

---

I can appreciate that from the standpoint of the site. As a commercial enterprise they have the right and even responsibility to limit liability.

What happened before? Must have been before my time.

- And keep in mind that I have no reason to give anyone a hard time. I'm here to answer legal questions to the best of my ability.

OP will hurt herself if she continues this thread - but I've said that before and it goes on.

Never try a case on the Internet!

And, yes, it was before your time.

And thank you, Tickle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBill100

What happened before? Must have been before my time.

---

Hello:

Wasn't before MY time, and I don't know what it was.

Exco

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tickle

Also like to point out that we can assist an OP to a point with some good advice, but we also have to be congnizant of how our opinions and answers effect AMHD on a whole, that is, as you know, goes without saying in lieu of what has happened before.

tick

---

Procrastination rhymes with physiology but you got me moving. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

- And keep in mind that I have no reason to give anyone a hard time. I'm here to answer legal questions to the best of my ability.

OP will hurt herself if she continues this thread - but I've said that before and it goes on.

Never try a case on the Internet!

---

Judy, Judy, Judy

I am very (or was, before retiring) competent in my field. However and concurrently, I am an internet nincompoop. You have convinced me of the wisdom of the above. You should be proud as you have simultaneously disproven the old addage that you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBill100

Judy, Judy, Judy

I am very (or was, before retiring) competent in my field. However and concurrently, I am an internet nincompoop. You have convinced me of the wisdom of the above. You should be proud as you have simultaneously disproven the old addage that you can't teach old dogs new tricks.

---

Do you know Cary Grant never said Judy, Judy, Judy - although the quote has always been attributed to him?

Yes, I am always proud when I teach any age dog a new trick.

However, I am busy training a new husband right now and so you will have to rely on excon to set you straight.

Good luck - too bad I don't have time right now to set HIM straight!

I haven't posted anything that isn't true and verifiable by the facts of the situation. Point out to me where I have committed slander or liable or said someone is incompetent or negligent. Defamation is when someone says false statements made maliciously with intent to cause a negative image. I have not made any groundless criticism, nor have I made a public disclosure of private facts. The facts I have disclosed are a public concern.

I never asked how I could sue the Coroner for money. That isn't what I'm interested in. If I find the coroner did not follow the law, I would want everyone to know. And if I can sue them/her, I will, or file a complaint or whatever steps I can take. If I find out the coroner did not deviate from the law, I still want people to know what can happen if one of their loved ones dies suddenly, alone, and unexpectedly with their own doctor, upon questioning from the coroner, gives his opinion that a full autopsy would be needed to determine the cause of death because he does not believe their medical condition caused the death. The coroner tells the family that an autopsy is being done and will take a little longer because of being backed up with dead bodies. Then when the body is release, the family and funeral director are told the autopsy is done. But in reality there was no autopsy. There is something wrong with that picture no matter which way you look at it.

It's hard getting people to be honest. Seems like he ones that aren't get ahead. Those playing the game of politics make laws to protect themselves, unfortunately.

You need to hold people accountable.

I am with Judy here, from personal experience. IF this were to go to court, every person who has posted here will be called.

While you may see nothing wrong with posting your experience, the medical examiner and/or her attorneys may see differently.

I respectfully unsubscribe from this thread.

Ok, Judy, you might be relieved or you might not care but, I talked to my lawyer just now about this mess, including several 'experts' telling me that I was wrong to post this information. He advised that my discussion online is not a problem and that I can record my interview with the coroner, though he suggested I do it above board, but it would not be illegal to conceal it. He mentioned that it is difficult to sue and file complaints against a government employee, but not impossible, and it has been done before. He advised me to stay calm and not sound accusatory, just that I am looking for answers for closure. He told me to call him back after my meeting and we will go over all the evidence I have and decide where to go from there. I really don't appreciate your tone of accusations against me or others trying to offer their advice. The reason I was holding off with my attorney is that one time I lost a case, I told him not to appeal it, he appealed it anyway and won my case for me... but I did not want him preempting me on this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J_9

I am with Judy here, from personal experience. IF this were to go to court, each and every person who has posted here will be called.

While you may see nothing wrong with posting your experience, the medical examiner and/or her attorneys may see differently.

I respectfully unsubscribe from this thread.

---

- And, upon advice, I am following you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

- And, upon advice, I am following you.

---

Yes, I will have to follow J_9 and JKT

tickle

Hello:

Where is everybody? Helloooooo.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello:

Where is everybody? Helloooooo.

excon

---

Here trying to find the edge of the internet. There could be a wrong answer somewhere :)

I'm right here excon, haven't been arrested or charged with any crime yet ;)

Of course you know what they say, these things take time

Hello again, t:

Well, if they show up, just say, "You dirty coppers. I'm innocent, I tell ya." It always worked for me.

excon

Ok, and if that doesn't work I'll point to my twin and say she's the one who did it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

I'm right here excon, haven't been arrested or charged with any crime yet ;)

Of course you know what they say, these things take time

---

Maybe excon (who should know) or somebody else will come back and explain to you AGAIN the difference between civil and criminal law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JudyKayTee

Do you know Cary Grant never said Judy, Judy, Judy - although the quote has always been attributed to him?

---

I wasn't thinking of Cary Grant. I had a neighbor, Bob, came home drunk every Saturday night. "Judy, Judy, Judy" he would announce as he entered the yard. "Judy, Judy, Judy. Let your daddy in." If his wife didn't respond immediately, he would continue until she did. Getting louder and louder.

Six months ago come Saturday his wife shot and killed him. Her name was Margaret.

And maybe I should explain again, I have the advice of my lawyer and according to him, I have done nothing criminal here. Besides, I thought you unsubscribed to this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBill100

I wasn't thinking of Cary Grant. I had a neighbor, Bob, came home drunk every Saturday night. "Judy, Judy, Judy" he would announce as he entered the yard. "Judy, Judy, Judy. Let your daddy in." If his wife didn't respond immediately, he would continue until she did. Getting louder and louder.

Six months ago come Saturday his wife shot and killed him. Her name was Margaret.

---

Omygosh, that's terrible!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

And maybe I should explain again, I have the advice of my lawyer and according to him, I have done nothing criminal here. Besides, I thought you unsubscribed to this post.

---

Oh, I did but I can't resist when you are so far off the legal track and just don't understand.

Your Attorney told you that you did nothing CRIMINAL and, thus, could not be arrested (and I'm not aware anyone said you did anything criminal). I said that you could be SUED and that's CIVIL for defamation.

And then after your Attorney told you you did nothing criminal you signed on and said you hadn't been arrested yet. Let's see -

Civil equals lawsuit.

Criminal equals arrest.

I'm glad I'm not a bitter person.

My attorney has told me I have nothing to fear as far as ANY kind of lawsuit being brought against me, thus far. Sorry I did not make that distinction when I said he had told me I had done nothing criminal. However someone in the coroner's office may have done something criminal.

I was reluctant to call my attorney before I got some feedback because I didn't want him to make any moves without my go ahead... which had happened before.

You come off as a bitter woman with a chip on her shoulder. I mean no disrespect, just saying. It is difficult enough for me to deal with my grief and I don't appreciate the tone of your posts.

I had my meeting with the coroner yesterday. She convinced me that my son died from a seizure. And though there is law, protocol and procedure that says an autopsy is needed when someone dies at home alone with no apparent cause, she is allowed to use discretion... she said she had seen very many seizure bathtub deaths, and to her, it was obvious that is what killed my son. She went over the autopsy photos and external exam and toxicology report and explained everything to me.

However, she pointed the finger at his doctor and told me his doctor is not telling me the truth about his frantic attempt to get a hold of my son the day he died and the appointment he went to the day before he died. She told me he was uncooperative with her and refused to sign the death certificate AND that there is no way possible that his blood levels of anti seizure meds were stable and therapeutic the day before he died, because he only had trace amounts in his toxicology screen.

She suggested that I get my son's medical records from the doctor, including his lab work. I'll do that... I'm not trying to sue anyone, I just want to know what happened and why it happened.

I would greatly appreciate it if anyone who has negative comments would keep them to themselves.

Hi this, I am glad you got that far and could be on your way to closure. All the best my dear on your journey.

Tick

Thank you so much tickle! I feel I am getting closure on this sad event. I can't count the many times I warned my son not to miss his medications and cried while warning him to never take a bath while alone. No matter what the coroner did or didn't do and no matter what his doctor did or didn't do, it was up to my son to at least take his meds as prescribed, and on time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

I'm not trying to sue anyone, I just want to know what happened and why it happened.

---

Hello again, this:

It looks like you are getting closer... I'm glad.

But, if you're trying to convince ME to help you because you DON'T want to sue anybody, you got the wrong guy. I think suing people is GOOD. Besides, if you're honest with yourself for a moment, you'll agree with me...

Come on now. If you determine that his doctor made HUGE mistakes that might have caused, or hurried along your sons death, don't tell me that you'll be satisfied by simply learning about it... Nope, you're going to want to sue his a$$ off, and you'd be right.

excon

I don't believe he made any mistakes, ex... I don't believe he was honest with me, but I think the mistake was with my son not taking his medicine.

The fact is, my son went to the doctor the day before he died to complain about the side effects of his seizure meds. He wanted to stop taking them, or at least, get it changed to something more tolerable. He had not had a seizure since Oct. 09 (that one nearly killed him), so, in that sense, he seemed more stable. But, my son wanted the meds changed and he was in denial about the seriousness of his condition. That is a fact.

His doctor told me the only reason he was calling him on that Saturday was to tell him that he would be willing to change his meds only IF my son would be willing to go into the hospital for the change. He said his blood levels were in the therapeutic range and that he was more stable than he'd ever seen him. I don't think that is the truth, if it was, he could have offered to do that when my son was at his appointment.

What I believe now is that the doctor was calling him on Saturday to warn him that his blood levels were way too low, but, by then it was too late. My guess is that he did not have the blood level results available at the time of the appointment. I am not sure why the doctor wouldn't be up front and honest about that, but I also don't know exactly what was said back and forth between the coroner and him. I only know that neither of them like the other.

Regardless, it was my son's responsibility to take his medication, and obviously he did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

I am not sure why the doctor wouldn't be up front and honest about that, but I also don't know exactly what was said back and forth between the coroner and him. I only know that neither of them like the other.

Regardless, it was my son's responsibility to take his medication, and obviously he did not.

---

Hello again, this:

Please forgive my cynical nature, but if the doctor is HIDING something, it might be because he did something REALLY wrong. Don't be so quick to blame your son.

So, we HAD a coroner who we thought was the bad guy, and we waited. Now we find out the coroner is cool, and his doctor is the bad guy. But, lo and behold, he says he's not. So you've interviewed everybody. The stories DON'T match up. There's nobody left to interview, you have NO answers, and you've run into a stonewall. Isn't it about time you hired a lawyer?

excon

I have a lawyer...

The coroner is not cool, I don't like her or her attitude. I still think she should have done an autopsy, and I'm not sure she is allowed to decide, based on her opinions, whether to do an autopsy or not.

I liked my son's doctor, though my son hated him, and so did/does the mother of his child. And yes, the doctor might be trying to hide something, or maybe not. Maybe he is just nervous that he didn't call my son till Saturday, when an earlier call could have saved him? I don't know those answers yet, but I might be able to find out with my son's medical records.

The thing is, the ultimate responsibility lies with my son. I was with my son on several occasions when the doctor was frantic, practically jumping up and down, to impress upon him how important it was to take every single pill prescribed. He was warned many times that not taking his medication could result in death... and I was with my son on countless occasions when he said he wanted to just stop taking the pills. So many times he was warned by me, and his doctor, yet his toxicology showed he stopped taking his medicine or missed at least several doses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thisisit

The thing is, the ultimate responsibility lies with my son. I was with my son on several ocassions when the doctor was frantic, practically jumping up and down, to impress upon him how important it was to take every single pill prescribed. He was warned many times that not taking his medication could result in death... and I was with my son on countless ocassions when he said he wanted to just stop taking the pills. So many times he was warned by me, and his doctor, yet his toxicology showed he stopped taking his medicine or missed at least several doses.

---

Hi this, just wondering, these anti seizure meds your son was on, did they create side effects that he just could not tolerate... sleeplessness, irritability? Or was it your son just did not want to be on any meds, no matter what they were ?

I feel so badly for you my dear. My son 27, is on anti seizure meds, living with it for years; busy guy, productive, the meds don't cause him any side effects where he can't function. He has nocturnal seizures, although less in the last few years, but there were a few times during the night I thought I would lose him. I was always blessed with being a light sleeper, listening all the time. That is what saved him.

I know beyond a shadow of a doubt what you went through.

Tick

He had terrible side effects, his gums swelled, he got painful acne all over his back, rashes, and swelling in his face, dullness, difficulty concentrating... seems he got most side effects from each drug he tried. I hope your son continues to do well with his meds.

Are you still planning on suing the coroner?

I'm glad you had satisfactory results from your meeting. I believe that the attitude and demeanor of the pathologist tells you a lot about how they conduct their business. It sounds as though this doctor at least took the time to address the issues in relation to cause of death. That's important to you and hopefully brings you some comfort.

However, I don't believe the toxicology results can be given much weight in the matter. As I recall, there was a single subclavian blood sample drawn at an unknown (to me) time. (If there were additional samples drawn, please let me know). Here let me refer to a couple of doctors far more experienced and internationally recognized specialists:

"There is substantial published evidence to show that for most drugs... there are important differences in their concentration in blood according to the time of specimen collection after death, choice of sampling site, method of sampling and volume of blood collected (Pounder and Jones 1990; Pounder 1993). It is common to observe tenfold differences in the concentration of certain drugs.... in post-mortem blood taken from different sites."

Clear your head of all ideas of in vivo toxicological analyses. Postmortem toxicology is completely different. Postmortem there is no even predictable distribution such as occurs through metabolism/circulation in life. Rather the processes of postmortem redistribution (PMR) take over and that is dependent on numerous factors, two of which are the pharmacokinetic properties of the drug and the elapsed time between sampling and time of death. The results obtained postmortem are not a snapshot of the condition/concentration of the drug at time of death.

The usual practice is to screen blood, urine and vitreous fluid concentrations along with selected tissue samples. There is a ratio and one corroborates the other. The preferred sample site for blood is the femoral vein.

If his private doctor had a laboratory blood analysis those results would be far more accurate than the PM toxicology report. If you are unable to obtain that then it is possible to research the specific drug in relation to PMR.

Please don't place reliance on the PM toxicology report without additional information.

Thanks Dr. Bill, obviously I've got further investigations to do... :(

There was only one source for the PM toxicology and the coroner argued with me about the unreliability of it.