Legal system is working

[Timetested]

Here is a transcipt from a news commentary on WBZ radio in Boston by attorney Niel Cheyet concerning a case that was allowed to go forward concerning a botched hair transplant. BRAVO!

 

Neil Chayet's

LOOKING AT THE LAW

 

 

HAIR TODAY, LAWSUIT TOMORROW

 

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„?

 

Next time you have a bad hair day you might think of Mitchell, who had such a bad hair day he decided to get to the root of the matter. Mitchell sued his doctors to recover damages for, what the court called, "very bad hair transplants." He claimed he was lured to the doctor by info-mercials, adds, solicitations and brochures that led him to believe that after a single procedure he'd have a full head of natural-looking hair for the rest of his life. In his hirsute lawsuit he claims he was left with scarring in both the front and the back of his head and a "most unnatural pluggy, dollike head of hair." The defense argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would think that a transplant would stop one's hairline from receding. But the court sided with Mitchell, noting that one add read that up to 5,000 hairs can be transplanted in a single session, implying a full head of hair is easily within reach. So it's a hairy situation, but Mitchell's case is headed for a jury and a permanent solution.

 

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„?

 

HELP RADIO NETWORK?„?

 

Mitchell v. Handler, New York Supreme Court, Phalen, J., 7/10/01, _ N.Y. Misc. 2d _(2001).

 

The Help Radio Network???’??? is responsible for the production of Looking at the Law???’???, a daily radio program hosted by Neil Chayet and nationally syndicated on CBS and CNN. Information on these broadcasts can be obtained by visiting lookingatthelaw@wbz.com.

 

Timetested

[Timetested]

Here is a transcipt from a news commentary on WBZ radio in Boston by attorney Niel Cheyet concerning a case that was allowed to go forward concerning a botched hair transplant. BRAVO!

 

Neil Chayet's

LOOKING AT THE LAW

 

 

HAIR TODAY, LAWSUIT TOMORROW

 

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„?

 

Next time you have a bad hair day you might think of Mitchell, who had such a bad hair day he decided to get to the root of the matter. Mitchell sued his doctors to recover damages for, what the court called, "very bad hair transplants." He claimed he was lured to the doctor by info-mercials, adds, solicitations and brochures that led him to believe that after a single procedure he'd have a full head of natural-looking hair for the rest of his life. In his hirsute lawsuit he claims he was left with scarring in both the front and the back of his head and a "most unnatural pluggy, dollike head of hair." The defense argued the case should be dismissed on the grounds that no reasonable consumer would think that a transplant would stop one's hairline from receding. But the court sided with Mitchell, noting that one add read that up to 5,000 hairs can be transplanted in a single session, implying a full head of hair is easily within reach. So it's a hairy situation, but Mitchell's case is headed for a jury and a permanent solution.

 

THIS IS NEIL CHAYET LOOKING AT THE LAW?„?

 

HELP RADIO NETWORK?„?

 

Mitchell v. Handler, New York Supreme Court, Phalen, J., 7/10/01, _ N.Y. Misc. 2d _(2001).

 

The Help Radio Network???’??? is responsible for the production of Looking at the Law???’???, a daily radio program hosted by Neil Chayet and nationally syndicated on CBS and CNN. Information on these broadcasts can be obtained by visiting lookingatthelaw@wbz.com.

 

Timetested

[arfy]

I wish I had been smart enough to sue MY doctor, before the statute of limitations ran out. (It is very short- I think it is three years...?)

 

I wish more unhappy patients would consider pressing a lawsuit against their doctor, if he didn't come through on his promises (or the promises of the consultant.) Guys often don't realize they've been screwed over with bad results, until a few years down the road, when their plugs become more visible. (This is why Follicular Unit grafts are so important! They will always look natural, not "pluggy" like Mini and Micrografts. Unlike Minis and Micros, FUs do not need to be concealed by other grafts, or a patient's natural hair.)

 

If more guys would go after their doctors through the legal system, that might encourage doctors to be more upfront to new patients about a hair transplant's limitations and drawbacks. As it is, I think a lot of doctors gloss over the facts, in order to encourage patients to get the surgery. This prevents a guy from making a truly "informed decision".

[Pat - Community Publisher]

Thanks for the post. I'd certainly be curious to know the name of the surgeon who lost the case. Wouldn't we all.

 

Pat

 

Thanks for reading this post. But it's your posts that make this discussion group real and vital. Please jump into the discussion. Just pick a topic and click the reply button.

[Timetested]

I believe the names are changed in the script for the on air commentary. However, wouldn't it be great if the case was aired on Court TV?

 

Timetested