When Psychics Sue ...
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 00:00
By Marcel Strigberger
I came across a story in Time of a medical malpractice lawsuit in Philadelphia by a psychic. It seems her doctors had conducted a CAT scan involving dye on her brain and she claimed that after the procedure she had lost the ability to communicate with the late poet John Milton.
The case was ultimately dismissed on appeal. Had the plaintiff however walked away with the jury’s initial award of almost $1 million, the case likely would have spawned similar litigation.
Following are the reasons for judgment arising out of one of these trials, in the case of Madame Molly v. St. Wherelse Hospital et al.
AMAZING J.: This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant doctor for damages for malpractice.
The plaintiff is a well-known psychic specializing in communicating with departed celebrities.
Until recently she was able, for a fee, to communicate with people who died several centuries ago. Furthermore she specialized in reaching departed poets. Her sub-specialty was reading Shakespeare.
As she said in her evidence: “I didn’t get too much call for the other bards like the Romantics.
Whenever I’d reach John Keats for example he’d say, ‘Leave me alone, I’m melancholy.’ I tried reaching Percy Shelley once or twice but I was told that he had gone swimming.”
The plaintiff would work “one-on-one” with her customers or she would do group séances in front of hundreds of people in hotel ballrooms.
The poets would surface, read some of their work, do a few favorite requests, answer questions and leave, again.
She gave an example of a huge gig she held at the Holiday Inn one Halloween evening where in front of a packed house she summoned William Shakespeare.
Shakespeare, arriving a few minutes late, apologized to the crowd, citing the fact that he had to take his daughter trick-or-treating.
During the course of the evening the poet read excepts from some of his greatest works.
When he was through the audience requested as was appropriate for the evening that he read from the witches’ scene in Macbeth.
The bard complied, going into his “Bubble bubble” business, to the delight of the cheering crowd.
Upon leaving the hotel Shakespeare said, “See you next time Molly. The Marriott at Christmas eve?” With that his voice faded out.
This event was confirmed by a handful of witnesses who were paying customers and who remembered the evening well.
But alas these triumphs were not to last. The plaintiff developed some headaches for which she underwent a CAT scan in which some dye was injected into her.
Although the scan didn’t turn up anything ominous, the plaintiff’s ability to reach those of the netherworld became compromised.
She first noticed hints of trouble on Christmas eve. The Marriott had packed a ballroom of faithful fans who had come to listen to William Shakespeare himself.
The people waited with baited breath while the plaintiff sat on stage around a small round table, a hood over her head, as she summoned through chants and incantations the famous poet of the Avon.
What came up indeed was an English writer. But something had gone wrong. Everyone realized that somehow the wires got crossed when the gentleman guest started off reciting, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ... .”
It seems that the plaintiff had landed Charles Dickens instead.
At first many people demanded their money back. But fortunately the evening was saved when Dickens switched to readings from his A Christmas Carol thereby drawing applause from the crowd and averting a riot.
Dickens ended the evening by thanking the audience that had stayed, telling them that it was a far far better thing they had done this night than they had ever done before.
The plaintiff was slightly embarrassed but more confused by the event. She asked herself how in the world did she draw Dickens instead of Shakespeare? She started to worry.
On a couple of occasions during private sessions Shakespeare was once again unusually late. On another occasion she somehow summoned Jean-Paul Sartre. When she asked who he was he replied, “I could be anybody. Do you have a cigarette?”
But what really was the coup de grace to her career was that night at a church just before Easter.
That fateful evening a large church group attended for the express purpose of hearing Shakespeare do some Hamlet.
The plaintiff developed some dizziness which slowed her down considerably. The pastor suggested that maybe she postpone her séance to another evening but she insisted that the show must go on.
After further efforts a voice entered the church hall but unfortunately it wasn’t Shakespeare’s. The plaintiff had summoned Geoffrey Chaucer.
Firstly she thought that “Willy” (as she affectionately called the bard) was pulling her leg. But before she or anyone else in the room could realize what hit them Chaucer started reading from his notorious Miller’s Tale.
Some of the members of the audience at first didn’t realize that this wasn’t Hamlet but there was little doubt in their minds as Chaucer got to the part where Absolon was about to apply the hot poker to the derrière of the unsuspecting Nicholas.
Pandemonium reigned for about an hour. The more the plaintiff and the pastor pleaded with Chaucer to leave, the more determined Chaucer became to continue his readings. He even did an encore of that hot poker passage.
Finally after great efforts the church janitor was able to rid the hall of Chaucer’s spirit, with the help of a sturdy broom.
Unfortunately the broom broke in the process.
Needless to say the plaintiff was embarrassed. And the pastor was beside himself. It did not assist him in trying to calm down his flock by saying to them, “I’m sorry but nobody ever said this was going to be the Globe Theatre.”
Having summarized the facts the court now must consider liability.
Plaintiff’s counsel suggests that there was no informed consent to the procedure by this client. Counsel pleads that it was incumbent upon the doctor to tell the plaintiff beforehand about possible side effects of the procedure, namely that instead of summoning Shakespeare she might end up bringing back other writers, and that this might embarrass her.
The defendant claims that the events in question were not reasonably foreseeable.
Counsel pleads that there is no way a reasonable doctor would know that performing the scan on the plaintiff might lead to a decline in the plaintiff’s ability to summon William Shakespeare.
The defence called an expert on psychic neurology, Professor Ulf Olaffsen, of Götteberg University, a world authority on the subject.
The professor testified that the plaintiff’s reaction to the scan was not a usual occurrence. He himself had tested the scan on hundreds of mice.
He found that at worst in about ten per cent of the cases the mice would end up pressing a red lever thereby indicating their desire to become professional hockey players. But this is about as bad as it got.
On cross-examination however, Prof. Olaffsen admitted that on one occasion after such a test on a mouse the laboratory was visited by playwright August Strindberg.
The court finds that there was no informed consent. It was incumbent on the defendant doctor to fully apprise the plaintiff of all reasonable ramifications of undergoing the scan, including the possibility of ending up on the NHL.
We now turn to the issue of damages. The plaintiff has proven losses of thousands of dollars in past and future engagements because of her inability to reach William Shakespeare anymore.
The defendant has tried to minimize the loss saying that we must take into account all other notable writers she still can reach.
I do not agree. The plaintiff has to have some certainty in her abilities to deliver. In the past she would proudly advertise an “Evening with Shakespeare Ghost.” What would she call it now? I do not accept that the defendant’s suggestion of “any boo will do.”
In addition to the lost revenue there is the embarrassment and loss of esteem the plaintiff has suffered. Before she used to be a fun-loving person and now she is full of self-doubt.
The last straw was only a week ago when during a small session she once again tried to reach Shakespeare and indeed he arrived but unfortunately he was accompanied by Sir Isaac Newton, who wouldn’t leave until the plaintiff bought him an apple. It’s just not the same anymore.
I assess total damages at $1.35 million dollars. Oh yes, and there will also be another $7.95 for a new janitor’s broom.
I came across a story in Time of a medical malpractice lawsuit in Philadelphia by a psychic. It seems her doctors had conducted a CAT scan involving dye on her brain and she claimed that after the procedure she had lost the ability to communicate with the late poet John Milton.
The case was ultimately dismissed on appeal. Had the plaintiff however walked away with the jury’s initial award of almost $1 million, the case likely would have spawned similar litigation.
Following are the reasons for judgment arising out of one of these trials, in the case of Madame Molly v. St. Wherelse Hospital et al.
AMAZING J.: This is an action by the plaintiff against the defendant doctor for damages for malpractice.
The plaintiff is a well-known psychic specializing in communicating with departed celebrities.
Until recently she was able, for a fee, to communicate with people who died several centuries ago. Furthermore she specialized in reaching departed poets. Her sub-specialty was reading Shakespeare.
As she said in her evidence: “I didn’t get too much call for the other bards like the Romantics.
Whenever I’d reach John Keats for example he’d say, ‘Leave me alone, I’m melancholy.’ I tried reaching Percy Shelley once or twice but I was told that he had gone swimming.”
The plaintiff would work “one-on-one” with her customers or she would do group séances in front of hundreds of people in hotel ballrooms.
The poets would surface, read some of their work, do a few favorite requests, answer questions and leave, again.
She gave an example of a huge gig she held at the Holiday Inn one Halloween evening where in front of a packed house she summoned William Shakespeare.
Shakespeare, arriving a few minutes late, apologized to the crowd, citing the fact that he had to take his daughter trick-or-treating.
During the course of the evening the poet read excepts from some of his greatest works.
When he was through the audience requested as was appropriate for the evening that he read from the witches’ scene in Macbeth.
The bard complied, going into his “Bubble bubble” business, to the delight of the cheering crowd.
Upon leaving the hotel Shakespeare said, “See you next time Molly. The Marriott at Christmas eve?” With that his voice faded out.
This event was confirmed by a handful of witnesses who were paying customers and who remembered the evening well.
But alas these triumphs were not to last. The plaintiff developed some headaches for which she underwent a CAT scan in which some dye was injected into her.
Although the scan didn’t turn up anything ominous, the plaintiff’s ability to reach those of the netherworld became compromised.
She first noticed hints of trouble on Christmas eve. The Marriott had packed a ballroom of faithful fans who had come to listen to William Shakespeare himself.
The people waited with baited breath while the plaintiff sat on stage around a small round table, a hood over her head, as she summoned through chants and incantations the famous poet of the Avon.
What came up indeed was an English writer. But something had gone wrong. Everyone realized that somehow the wires got crossed when the gentleman guest started off reciting, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times ... .”
It seems that the plaintiff had landed Charles Dickens instead.
At first many people demanded their money back. But fortunately the evening was saved when Dickens switched to readings from his A Christmas Carol thereby drawing applause from the crowd and averting a riot.
Dickens ended the evening by thanking the audience that had stayed, telling them that it was a far far better thing they had done this night than they had ever done before.
The plaintiff was slightly embarrassed but more confused by the event. She asked herself how in the world did she draw Dickens instead of Shakespeare? She started to worry.
On a couple of occasions during private sessions Shakespeare was once again unusually late. On another occasion she somehow summoned Jean-Paul Sartre. When she asked who he was he replied, “I could be anybody. Do you have a cigarette?”
But what really was the coup de grace to her career was that night at a church just before Easter.
That fateful evening a large church group attended for the express purpose of hearing Shakespeare do some Hamlet.
The plaintiff developed some dizziness which slowed her down considerably. The pastor suggested that maybe she postpone her séance to another evening but she insisted that the show must go on.
After further efforts a voice entered the church hall but unfortunately it wasn’t Shakespeare’s. The plaintiff had summoned Geoffrey Chaucer.
Firstly she thought that “Willy” (as she affectionately called the bard) was pulling her leg. But before she or anyone else in the room could realize what hit them Chaucer started reading from his notorious Miller’s Tale.
Some of the members of the audience at first didn’t realize that this wasn’t Hamlet but there was little doubt in their minds as Chaucer got to the part where Absolon was about to apply the hot poker to the derrière of the unsuspecting Nicholas.
Pandemonium reigned for about an hour. The more the plaintiff and the pastor pleaded with Chaucer to leave, the more determined Chaucer became to continue his readings. He even did an encore of that hot poker passage.
Finally after great efforts the church janitor was able to rid the hall of Chaucer’s spirit, with the help of a sturdy broom.
Unfortunately the broom broke in the process.
Needless to say the plaintiff was embarrassed. And the pastor was beside himself. It did not assist him in trying to calm down his flock by saying to them, “I’m sorry but nobody ever said this was going to be the Globe Theatre.”
Having summarized the facts the court now must consider liability.
Plaintiff’s counsel suggests that there was no informed consent to the procedure by this client. Counsel pleads that it was incumbent upon the doctor to tell the plaintiff beforehand about possible side effects of the procedure, namely that instead of summoning Shakespeare she might end up bringing back other writers, and that this might embarrass her.
The defendant claims that the events in question were not reasonably foreseeable.
Counsel pleads that there is no way a reasonable doctor would know that performing the scan on the plaintiff might lead to a decline in the plaintiff’s ability to summon William Shakespeare.
The defence called an expert on psychic neurology, Professor Ulf Olaffsen, of Götteberg University, a world authority on the subject.
The professor testified that the plaintiff’s reaction to the scan was not a usual occurrence. He himself had tested the scan on hundreds of mice.
He found that at worst in about ten per cent of the cases the mice would end up pressing a red lever thereby indicating their desire to become professional hockey players. But this is about as bad as it got.
On cross-examination however, Prof. Olaffsen admitted that on one occasion after such a test on a mouse the laboratory was visited by playwright August Strindberg.
The court finds that there was no informed consent. It was incumbent on the defendant doctor to fully apprise the plaintiff of all reasonable ramifications of undergoing the scan, including the possibility of ending up on the NHL.
We now turn to the issue of damages. The plaintiff has proven losses of thousands of dollars in past and future engagements because of her inability to reach William Shakespeare anymore.
The defendant has tried to minimize the loss saying that we must take into account all other notable writers she still can reach.
I do not agree. The plaintiff has to have some certainty in her abilities to deliver. In the past she would proudly advertise an “Evening with Shakespeare Ghost.” What would she call it now? I do not accept that the defendant’s suggestion of “any boo will do.”
In addition to the lost revenue there is the embarrassment and loss of esteem the plaintiff has suffered. Before she used to be a fun-loving person and now she is full of self-doubt.
The last straw was only a week ago when during a small session she once again tried to reach Shakespeare and indeed he arrived but unfortunately he was accompanied by Sir Isaac Newton, who wouldn’t leave until the plaintiff bought him an apple. It’s just not the same anymore.
I assess total damages at $1.35 million dollars. Oh yes, and there will also be another $7.95 for a new janitor’s broom.
______________
© 2007 Marcel Strigberger. This article CANNOT be copied or reproduced in any way without the expressed written consent of the Author.
Add a comment