A man in Virgina was awarded $500,000 from a lawsuit after he inadvertently recorded medical professionals talking about him while he was under anesthesia. The man, who remains unnamed, intended to record his interaction with his doctor before receiving a colonoscopy in order to recall the care instructions that the doctor provided, according to the Washington Post. However, when he played the recording back, the man realized that he recorded much more than care instructions; he captured the entire operation, which included multiple people speaking poorly of him. The interaction was among the gastroenterologist performing the colonoscopy, the anesthesiologist and a medical assistant, and was entered as evidence in a defamation and medical malpractice lawsuit. The surgery took place on April 18, 2013. While the victim was sleeping, Tiffany Ingham, the anesthesiologist, said to the patient, "After five minutes of talking to you in pre-op, I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit.""After five minutes of talking to you in pre-op, I wanted to punch you in the face and man you up a little bit." The medical assistant noted that the patient had a rash on his arm, and Ingham was recorded saying that the assistant may catch "some syphilis on your arm or something," adding that “it’s probably tuberculosis in the penis, so you’ll be all right.” After hearing the recording, the man sued the two doctors and their practices for defamation and malpractice, winning $500,000 after a three-day trial. The gastroenterologist, Soloman Shah, was dismissed from the case, although he can be heard on the recording making an Ebola comment while talking about the rash and did not stop Ingham from talking about the patient. The man received $100,000 for defamation, $200,000 for medical malpractice and $200,000 for punitive damages, although he was originally seeking $1.75 million. Lee Berlik, a lawyer who specializes in defamation law, told the Washington Post that comments like these between doctors would normally be considered privileged, but the man claimed that there were others present while the operation was taking place. Because Virginia is a “one-party consent” state, only one person involved needed to agree to the recording, where as this would not be acceptable evidence in other states. State licensing records indicate that Ingham has since moved to Florida. What do you think about this story? Share it in the comments. Source
