$500 million dollars to the victims of Larry Nassar.

Where does that money come from? Is it Michigan State's endowment?

My guess is some of it will covered by liability insurance. I think another portion will be paid by money earned from unrestricted net assets garnered various buckets such as tuition, fees, etc. Lastly, I think they will simply borrow some money.

(05-16-2018 12:42 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  My guess is some of it will covered by liability insurance. I think another portion will be paid by money earned from unrestricted net assets garnered various buckets such as tuition, fees, etc. Lastly, I think they will simply borrow some money.

Read the main Reddit thread where someone said that the university was in good standing with S&P, so this may be part of what they do.

Unfortunate, because the expenses get passed on to the students through tuition rate increases and fees, Michigan State may not feel much pain through all of this. They make way too much.

(05-16-2018 12:13 PM)jarmzet Wrote:  $500 million dollars to the victims of Larry Nassar.

Where does that money come from? Is it Michigan State's endowment?

The money will almost certainly NOT come from the endowment. Most endowment funds have specific restrictions in place when they were donated (e.g. "The funds donated by Frank the Tank on May 16, 2018 may only be used to support scholarships for the Department of Finance"), so they cannot be used for any other purpose. As CliftonAve noted, it's highly likely that there are insurance policies in place (such as professional liability insurance and/or malpractice coverage) and they'll borrow money (which they can obtain at a fairly low rate by issuing bonds) for the rest. MSU will pretty much use anything OTHER than the endowment to pay off this settlement.

330 women involved in the settlement. 330 victims of this guy.

I have been a civil defense lawyer for 31 years. Nobody voluntarily pays a half billion (with a "B") dollars to 330 people if their claims weren't valid.

(05-16-2018 01:23 PM)TampaTom Wrote:  

(05-16-2018 12:42 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  My guess is some of it will covered by liability insurance. I think another portion will be paid by money earned from unrestricted net assets garnered various buckets such as tuition, fees, etc. Lastly, I think they will simply borrow some money.

Read the main Reddit thread where someone said that the university was in good standing with S&P, so this may be part of what they do.

Unfortunate, because the expenses get passed on to the students through tuition rate increases and fees, Michigan State may not feel much pain through all of this. They make way too much.

The university WILL feel the pain. Borrowing money is not carte blanche to do whatever you want. The university worked very hard to get in a good financial situation, and now they're still deep in the hole with very little flexibility.

Historically, MSU spends 5% of the endowment's growth, that may likely increase.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/m.../23284723/

They've also higher than average returns since over 25% of their money is in hedge funds. They had a 15.4% return just last year.
http://www.pionline.com/article/20170817...-benchmark

I read an article suggesting that MSU could have probably gotten out of any legal/financial jeopardy with the Larry Nassar situation based on state laws in Michigan. The same article suggested that the university settled to avoid further national attention as an attempt to put this saga in the past and avoid having its name dragged through the mud again as happened in the Nassar sentencing hearing in Ingham county court.

What I have not read and what I honestly don't understand is how MSU could bare any responsibility for Nassar's patients that were not seen by him on campus. Maybe the 300 plus women in this settlement were seen by him at MSU, but i don't believe that to be the case. Maybe the logic is that if MSU fired Nassar earlier then he would have less access to women. Maybe MSU holds liability for not reporting complaints about Nassar to the police. I did read that local law enforcement of some sort or other was contacted and the prosecutor took no action against Nassar.

Maybe MSU is liable for patient's treated on campus because Dr Nassar did not receive adequate informed consent from these women. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require Dr Nassar to have adequate documentation. Maybe MSU is liable because Dr Nassar was not required to wear adequate PPE. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require parents/nurse in the treatment room when treating minors or evaluating/treating female patients in general.

As a physician, one thing that still perplexes me about this situation is how you differentiate legitimate treatment for myofascial problems from sexual abuse. Janet Travell, MD formerly of Duke University discusses intravaginal exam and treatment of myofascial trigger points of the pelvic floor muscles in her well respected books on treating myofascial problems. At what point does a physician performing a well documented exam/treatment on his patient's become sexual abuse? I have not read that he forced them to do any sexual activity. I did read that he got an erection. I do not believe that getting an erection is a form of sexual abuse. While not using PPE, getting informed consent, documenting properly or having a chaperone in a treatment room could be construed as malpractice, i am not sure that these lack of actions equate to sexual abuse.

A person might legitimately ask about the frequency of his patient's getting this kind of exam/treatment or the frequency that the treatments were performed on the individual patients. As a physician, i suggest that patients that perform the same repetitive activities will many times have the same complaints and conditions. If Nassar thought that gymnasts typically had pelvic floor muscle problems then i could see him legitimately examining his patient's for that finding. Also treatment of Myofascial problems is ongoing unless the patient ceases the activity which causes the problem.

I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I am not a SEC fan, but have heard a lot of posts about how the SEC cheats a lot. Then you see two BIG teams, AAU teams that have done things much worse. It really shows you what money can buy.

(05-19-2018 03:59 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  I am not a SEC fan, but have heard a lot of posts about how the SEC cheats a lot. Then you see two BIG teams, AAU teams that have done things much worse. It really shows you what money can buy.

This has nothing to do with MSU athletics. This guy was at the Osteopathic College.

(05-19-2018 01:28 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I read an article suggesting that MSU could have probably gotten out of any legal/financial jeopardy with the Larry Nassar situation based on state laws in Michigan. The same article suggested that the university settled to avoid further national attention as an attempt to put this saga in the past and avoid having its name dragged through the mud again as happened in the Nassar sentencing hearing in Ingham county court.

What I have not read and what I honestly don't understand is how MSU could bare any responsibility for Nassar's patients that were not seen by him on campus. Maybe the 300 plus women in this settlement were seen by him at MSU, but i don't believe that to be the case. Maybe the logic is that if MSU fired Nassar earlier then he would have less access to women. Maybe MSU holds liability for not reporting complaints about Nassar to the police. I did read that local law enforcement of some sort or other was contacted and the prosecutor took no action against Nassar.

Maybe MSU is liable for patient's treated on campus because Dr Nassar did not receive adequate informed consent from these women. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require Dr Nassar to have adequate documentation. Maybe MSU is liable because Dr Nassar was not required to wear adequate PPE. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require parents/nurse in the treatment room when treating minors or evaluating/treating female patients in general.

As a physician, one thing that still perplexes me about this situation is how you differentiate legitimate treatment for myofascial problems from sexual abuse. Janet Travell, MD formerly of Duke University discusses intravaginal exam and treatment of myofascial trigger points of the pelvic floor muscles in her well respected books on treating myofascial problems. At what point does a physician performing a well documented exam/treatment on his patient's become sexual abuse? I have not read that he forced them to do any sexual activity. I did read that he got an erection. I do not believe that getting an erection is a form of sexual abuse. While not using PPE, getting informed consent, documenting properly or having a chaperone in a treatment room could be construed as malpractice, i am not sure that these lack of actions equate to sexual abuse.

A person might legitimately ask about the frequency of his patient's getting this kind of exam/treatment or the frequency that the treatments were performed on the individual patients. As a physician, i suggest that patients that perform the same repetitive activities will many times have the same complaints and conditions. If Nassar thought that gymnasts typically had pelvic floor muscle problems then i could see him legitimately examining his patient's for that finding. Also treatment of Myofascial problems is ongoing unless the patient ceases the activity which causes the problem.

I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I've worked in the Medical Professional Liability and Healthcare setting for 22 years. As Terry notes above, nobody pays $500M without the claims being valid. With these type of damages, if there is a statutory defense or you have supportive evidence to defend your case you aggressively defend it to the end. You take it to the Supreme Court if you have to.

I have no doubt that MSU argued Nassar acted outside the scope of his employment and violated several provisions of his employment contract. Any plaintiff attorney worth his salt counters this by raising direct allegations against MSU such as negligent hiring, credentialing and training, in addition to claims MSU knew or should have known these acts were occurring.

I've had several cases over the yeas where sexual assault was pled. Unless there is video or audio evidence of the event taking place, you are left to the medical record and deposition testimony of the parties and other fact witnesses. In a civil case, there is not a reasonable doubt burden of proof, it is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The jury weighs all the evidence and decides. MSU chose to settle this case because they believed a jury would find against them and the potential verdict value and other costs would be far greater.

(05-21-2018 07:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:28 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I read an article suggesting that MSU could have probably gotten out of any legal/financial jeopardy with the Larry Nassar situation based on state laws in Michigan. The same article suggested that the university settled to avoid further national attention as an attempt to put this saga in the past and avoid having its name dragged through the mud again as happened in the Nassar sentencing hearing in Ingham county court.

What I have not read and what I honestly don't understand is how MSU could bare any responsibility for Nassar's patients that were not seen by him on campus. Maybe the 300 plus women in this settlement were seen by him at MSU, but i don't believe that to be the case. Maybe the logic is that if MSU fired Nassar earlier then he would have less access to women. Maybe MSU holds liability for not reporting complaints about Nassar to the police. I did read that local law enforcement of some sort or other was contacted and the prosecutor took no action against Nassar.

Maybe MSU is liable for patient's treated on campus because Dr Nassar did not receive adequate informed consent from these women. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require Dr Nassar to have adequate documentation. Maybe MSU is liable because Dr Nassar was not required to wear adequate PPE. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require parents/nurse in the treatment room when treating minors or evaluating/treating female patients in general.

As a physician, one thing that still perplexes me about this situation is how you differentiate legitimate treatment for myofascial problems from sexual abuse. Janet Travell, MD formerly of Duke University discusses intravaginal exam and treatment of myofascial trigger points of the pelvic floor muscles in her well respected books on treating myofascial problems. At what point does a physician performing a well documented exam/treatment on his patient's become sexual abuse? I have not read that he forced them to do any sexual activity. I did read that he got an erection. I do not believe that getting an erection is a form of sexual abuse. While not using PPE, getting informed consent, documenting properly or having a chaperone in a treatment room could be construed as malpractice, i am not sure that these lack of actions equate to sexual abuse.

A person might legitimately ask about the frequency of his patient's getting this kind of exam/treatment or the frequency that the treatments were performed on the individual patients. As a physician, i suggest that patients that perform the same repetitive activities will many times have the same complaints and conditions. If Nassar thought that gymnasts typically had pelvic floor muscle problems then i could see him legitimately examining his patient's for that finding. Also treatment of Myofascial problems is ongoing unless the patient ceases the activity which causes the problem.

I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I've worked in the Medical Professional Liability and Healthcare setting for 22 years. As Terry notes above, nobody pays $500M without the claims being valid. With these type of damages, if there is a statutory defense or you have supportive evidence to defend your case you aggressively defend it to the end. You take it to the Supreme Court if you have to.

I have no doubt that MSU argued Nassar acted outside the scope of his employment and violated several provisions of his employment contract. Any plaintiff attorney worth his salt counters this by raising direct allegations against MSU such as negligent hiring, credentialing and training, in addition to claims MSU knew or should have known these acts were occurring.

I've had several cases over the yeas where sexual assault was pled. Unless there is video or audio evidence of the event taking place, you are left to the medical record and deposition testimony of the parties and other fact witnesses. In a civil case, there is not a reasonable doubt burden of proof, it is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The jury weighs all the evidence and decides. MSU chose to settle this case because they believed a jury would find against them and the potential verdict value and other costs would be far greater.

Absolutely right in all respects, CliftonAve. Good analysis.

MSU agreed to pay $500 million dollars rather than try even one of these claims to a jury.

Everything else is word vomit. They feared jury verdicts much higher than that or there would be no settlement. Full stop. End.

(05-19-2018 01:28 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I have a good friend whose niece was molested by Nassar 15 years ago. She is now an adult, and described to her uncle what happened - in the training room, when she was sore, etc, Nassar would claim he had a pain relieving technique that involved inserting his fingers into her ****** and massaging the interior. She was 10 at the time, and Nassar would rattle off the list of Olympians that he had helped.

(05-21-2018 12:51 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:28 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I have a good friend whose niece was molested by Nassar 15 years ago. She is now an adult, and described to her uncle what happened - in the training room, when she was sore, etc, Nassar would claim he had a pain relieving technique that involved inserting his fingers into her ****** and massaging the interior. She was 10 at the time, and Nassar would rattle off the list of Olympians that he had helped.

I believe the statement that you quoted is an accurate statement of fact. In Janet Travell's Trigger Point Therapy books it discusses treating Myofascial Pain Syndromes caused by muscles of the pelvic floor with intra-vaginal massage (Trigger Point Therapy).

(05-21-2018 10:47 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 07:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:28 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I read an article suggesting that MSU could have probably gotten out of any legal/financial jeopardy with the Larry Nassar situation based on state laws in Michigan. The same article suggested that the university settled to avoid further national attention as an attempt to put this saga in the past and avoid having its name dragged through the mud again as happened in the Nassar sentencing hearing in Ingham county court.

What I have not read and what I honestly don't understand is how MSU could bare any responsibility for Nassar's patients that were not seen by him on campus. Maybe the 300 plus women in this settlement were seen by him at MSU, but i don't believe that to be the case. Maybe the logic is that if MSU fired Nassar earlier then he would have less access to women. Maybe MSU holds liability for not reporting complaints about Nassar to the police. I did read that local law enforcement of some sort or other was contacted and the prosecutor took no action against Nassar.

Maybe MSU is liable for patient's treated on campus because Dr Nassar did not receive adequate informed consent from these women. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require Dr Nassar to have adequate documentation. Maybe MSU is liable because Dr Nassar was not required to wear adequate PPE. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require parents/nurse in the treatment room when treating minors or evaluating/treating female patients in general.

As a physician, one thing that still perplexes me about this situation is how you differentiate legitimate treatment for myofascial problems from sexual abuse. Janet Travell, MD formerly of Duke University discusses intravaginal exam and treatment of myofascial trigger points of the pelvic floor muscles in her well respected books on treating myofascial problems. At what point does a physician performing a well documented exam/treatment on his patient's become sexual abuse? I have not read that he forced them to do any sexual activity. I did read that he got an erection. I do not believe that getting an erection is a form of sexual abuse. While not using PPE, getting informed consent, documenting properly or having a chaperone in a treatment room could be construed as malpractice, i am not sure that these lack of actions equate to sexual abuse.

A person might legitimately ask about the frequency of his patient's getting this kind of exam/treatment or the frequency that the treatments were performed on the individual patients. As a physician, i suggest that patients that perform the same repetitive activities will many times have the same complaints and conditions. If Nassar thought that gymnasts typically had pelvic floor muscle problems then i could see him legitimately examining his patient's for that finding. Also treatment of Myofascial problems is ongoing unless the patient ceases the activity which causes the problem.

I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I've worked in the Medical Professional Liability and Healthcare setting for 22 years. As Terry notes above, nobody pays $500M without the claims being valid. With these type of damages, if there is a statutory defense or you have supportive evidence to defend your case you aggressively defend it to the end. You take it to the Supreme Court if you have to.

I have no doubt that MSU argued Nassar acted outside the scope of his employment and violated several provisions of his employment contract. Any plaintiff attorney worth his salt counters this by raising direct allegations against MSU such as negligent hiring, credentialing and training, in addition to claims MSU knew or should have known these acts were occurring.

I've had several cases over the yeas where sexual assault was pled. Unless there is video or audio evidence of the event taking place, you are left to the medical record and deposition testimony of the parties and other fact witnesses. In a civil case, there is not a reasonable doubt burden of proof, it is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The jury weighs all the evidence and decides. MSU chose to settle this case because they believed a jury would find against them and the potential verdict value and other costs would be far greater.

Absolutely right in all respects, CliftonAve. Good analysis.

MSU agreed to pay $500 million dollars rather than try even one of these claims to a jury.

Everything else is word vomit. They feared jury verdicts much higher than that or there would be no settlement. Full stop. End.

Terry,
I believe that you are right that MSU settled to avoid a worse financial penalty and more negative publicity with these cases. And as Clifton says this was a civil case and therefore did not require the same burden of proof on the part of the plaintiffs.

Once again i still question for the sexual assault cases how you differentiate a well established form of treatment provided by a licensed physician to his patient versus the patient calling the established form of treatment sexual assault years later.

(05-26-2018 12:06 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 10:47 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 07:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:28 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I read an article suggesting that MSU could have probably gotten out of any legal/financial jeopardy with the Larry Nassar situation based on state laws in Michigan. The same article suggested that the university settled to avoid further national attention as an attempt to put this saga in the past and avoid having its name dragged through the mud again as happened in the Nassar sentencing hearing in Ingham county court.

What I have not read and what I honestly don't understand is how MSU could bare any responsibility for Nassar's patients that were not seen by him on campus. Maybe the 300 plus women in this settlement were seen by him at MSU, but i don't believe that to be the case. Maybe the logic is that if MSU fired Nassar earlier then he would have less access to women. Maybe MSU holds liability for not reporting complaints about Nassar to the police. I did read that local law enforcement of some sort or other was contacted and the prosecutor took no action against Nassar.

Maybe MSU is liable for patient's treated on campus because Dr Nassar did not receive adequate informed consent from these women. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require Dr Nassar to have adequate documentation. Maybe MSU is liable because Dr Nassar was not required to wear adequate PPE. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require parents/nurse in the treatment room when treating minors or evaluating/treating female patients in general.

As a physician, one thing that still perplexes me about this situation is how you differentiate legitimate treatment for myofascial problems from sexual abuse. Janet Travell, MD formerly of Duke University discusses intravaginal exam and treatment of myofascial trigger points of the pelvic floor muscles in her well respected books on treating myofascial problems. At what point does a physician performing a well documented exam/treatment on his patient's become sexual abuse? I have not read that he forced them to do any sexual activity. I did read that he got an erection. I do not believe that getting an erection is a form of sexual abuse. While not using PPE, getting informed consent, documenting properly or having a chaperone in a treatment room could be construed as malpractice, i am not sure that these lack of actions equate to sexual abuse.

A person might legitimately ask about the frequency of his patient's getting this kind of exam/treatment or the frequency that the treatments were performed on the individual patients. As a physician, i suggest that patients that perform the same repetitive activities will many times have the same complaints and conditions. If Nassar thought that gymnasts typically had pelvic floor muscle problems then i could see him legitimately examining his patient's for that finding. Also treatment of Myofascial problems is ongoing unless the patient ceases the activity which causes the problem.

I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I've worked in the Medical Professional Liability and Healthcare setting for 22 years. As Terry notes above, nobody pays $500M without the claims being valid. With these type of damages, if there is a statutory defense or you have supportive evidence to defend your case you aggressively defend it to the end. You take it to the Supreme Court if you have to.

I have no doubt that MSU argued Nassar acted outside the scope of his employment and violated several provisions of his employment contract. Any plaintiff attorney worth his salt counters this by raising direct allegations against MSU such as negligent hiring, credentialing and training, in addition to claims MSU knew or should have known these acts were occurring.

I've had several cases over the yeas where sexual assault was pled. Unless there is video or audio evidence of the event taking place, you are left to the medical record and deposition testimony of the parties and other fact witnesses. In a civil case, there is not a reasonable doubt burden of proof, it is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The jury weighs all the evidence and decides. MSU chose to settle this case because they believed a jury would find against them and the potential verdict value and other costs would be far greater.

Absolutely right in all respects, CliftonAve. Good analysis.

MSU agreed to pay $500 million dollars rather than try even one of these claims to a jury.

Everything else is word vomit. They feared jury verdicts much higher than that or there would be no settlement. Full stop. End.

Terry,
I believe that you are right that MSU settled to avoid a worse financial penalty and more negative publicity with these cases. And as Clifton says this was a civil case and therefore did not require the same burden of proof on the part of the plaintiffs.

Once again i still question for the sexual assault cases how you differentiate a well established form of treatment provided by a licensed physician to his patient versus the patient calling the established form of treatment sexual assault years later.

Not the same burden of proof or a requirement of an unanimous jury, but that is the same for all civil cases.

Your question was one for the jury to figure out, but MSU was terrified of the probable answer.

(05-26-2018 12:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 12:06 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 10:47 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 07:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(05-19-2018 01:28 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  I read an article suggesting that MSU could have probably gotten out of any legal/financial jeopardy with the Larry Nassar situation based on state laws in Michigan. The same article suggested that the university settled to avoid further national attention as an attempt to put this saga in the past and avoid having its name dragged through the mud again as happened in the Nassar sentencing hearing in Ingham county court.

What I have not read and what I honestly don't understand is how MSU could bare any responsibility for Nassar's patients that were not seen by him on campus. Maybe the 300 plus women in this settlement were seen by him at MSU, but i don't believe that to be the case. Maybe the logic is that if MSU fired Nassar earlier then he would have less access to women. Maybe MSU holds liability for not reporting complaints about Nassar to the police. I did read that local law enforcement of some sort or other was contacted and the prosecutor took no action against Nassar.

Maybe MSU is liable for patient's treated on campus because Dr Nassar did not receive adequate informed consent from these women. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require Dr Nassar to have adequate documentation. Maybe MSU is liable because Dr Nassar was not required to wear adequate PPE. Maybe MSU is liable because they did not require parents/nurse in the treatment room when treating minors or evaluating/treating female patients in general.

As a physician, one thing that still perplexes me about this situation is how you differentiate legitimate treatment for myofascial problems from sexual abuse. Janet Travell, MD formerly of Duke University discusses intravaginal exam and treatment of myofascial trigger points of the pelvic floor muscles in her well respected books on treating myofascial problems. At what point does a physician performing a well documented exam/treatment on his patient's become sexual abuse? I have not read that he forced them to do any sexual activity. I did read that he got an erection. I do not believe that getting an erection is a form of sexual abuse. While not using PPE, getting informed consent, documenting properly or having a chaperone in a treatment room could be construed as malpractice, i am not sure that these lack of actions equate to sexual abuse.

A person might legitimately ask about the frequency of his patient's getting this kind of exam/treatment or the frequency that the treatments were performed on the individual patients. As a physician, i suggest that patients that perform the same repetitive activities will many times have the same complaints and conditions. If Nassar thought that gymnasts typically had pelvic floor muscle problems then i could see him legitimately examining his patient's for that finding. Also treatment of Myofascial problems is ongoing unless the patient ceases the activity which causes the problem.

I do not claim to know Nassar's intent when evaluating and treating his patient's. If his intent was sexual in nature then i believe that his evaluation and treatment should be considered sexual abuse. If his intent was not sexual in nature then there is published medical information about examining and treating myofascial problems of the pelvic floor muscles intra-vaginally.

I have read that he used "Sham Treatments". I have looked for and not seen who determined that his treatments were not legitimate treatments.

I've worked in the Medical Professional Liability and Healthcare setting for 22 years. As Terry notes above, nobody pays $500M without the claims being valid. With these type of damages, if there is a statutory defense or you have supportive evidence to defend your case you aggressively defend it to the end. You take it to the Supreme Court if you have to.

I have no doubt that MSU argued Nassar acted outside the scope of his employment and violated several provisions of his employment contract. Any plaintiff attorney worth his salt counters this by raising direct allegations against MSU such as negligent hiring, credentialing and training, in addition to claims MSU knew or should have known these acts were occurring.

I've had several cases over the yeas where sexual assault was pled. Unless there is video or audio evidence of the event taking place, you are left to the medical record and deposition testimony of the parties and other fact witnesses. In a civil case, there is not a reasonable doubt burden of proof, it is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The jury weighs all the evidence and decides. MSU chose to settle this case because they believed a jury would find against them and the potential verdict value and other costs would be far greater.

Absolutely right in all respects, CliftonAve. Good analysis.

MSU agreed to pay $500 million dollars rather than try even one of these claims to a jury.

Everything else is word vomit. They feared jury verdicts much higher than that or there would be no settlement. Full stop. End.

Terry,
I believe that you are right that MSU settled to avoid a worse financial penalty and more negative publicity with these cases. And as Clifton says this was a civil case and therefore did not require the same burden of proof on the part of the plaintiffs.

Once again i still question for the sexual assault cases how you differentiate a well established form of treatment provided by a licensed physician to his patient versus the patient calling the established form of treatment sexual assault years later.

Not the same burden of proof or a requirement of an unanimous jury, but that is the same for all civil cases.

Your question was one for the jury to figure out, but MSU was terrified of the probable answer.

Seems like Sparty84 is not convinced Nassar did anything wrong, even though MSU settled for 1/2 Billion dollars.

That just seems to beggar belief. I can't imagine anyone handing over that amount of cash just to avoid 'bad publicity', unless they thought part of the bad publicity was going to be a jury verdict even higher.

And the reason for *that* would seem to be that MSU's lawyers and doctors advised them that Nassar did indeed do much wrong, and thus an adverse jury verdict was likely.

(05-26-2018 12:32 PM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 12:28 PM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-26-2018 12:06 PM)Sparty84 Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 10:47 AM)TerryD Wrote:  

(05-21-2018 07:56 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I've worked in the Medical Professional Liability and Healthcare setting for 22 years. As Terry notes above, nobody pays $500M without the claims being valid. With these type of damages, if there is a statutory defense or you have supportive evidence to defend your case you aggressively defend it to the end. You take it to the Supreme Court if you have to.

I have no doubt that MSU argued Nassar acted outside the scope of his employment and violated several provisions of his employment contract. Any plaintiff attorney worth his salt counters this by raising direct allegations against MSU such as negligent hiring, credentialing and training, in addition to claims MSU knew or should have known these acts were occurring.

I've had several cases over the yeas where sexual assault was pled. Unless there is video or audio evidence of the event taking place, you are left to the medical record and deposition testimony of the parties and other fact witnesses. In a civil case, there is not a reasonable doubt burden of proof, it is a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not). The jury weighs all the evidence and decides. MSU chose to settle this case because they believed a jury would find against them and the potential verdict value and other costs would be far greater.

Absolutely right in all respects, CliftonAve. Good analysis.

MSU agreed to pay $500 million dollars rather than try even one of these claims to a jury.

Everything else is word vomit. They feared jury verdicts much higher than that or there would be no settlement. Full stop. End.

Terry,
I believe that you are right that MSU settled to avoid a worse financial penalty and more negative publicity with these cases. And as Clifton says this was a civil case and therefore did not require the same burden of proof on the part of the plaintiffs.

Once again i still question for the sexual assault cases how you differentiate a well established form of treatment provided by a licensed physician to his patient versus the patient calling the established form of treatment sexual assault years later.

Not the same burden of proof or a requirement of an unanimous jury, but that is the same for all civil cases.

Your question was one for the jury to figure out, but MSU was terrified of the probable answer.

Seems like Sparty84 is not convinced Nassar did anything wrong, even though MSU settled for 1/2 Billion dollars.

That just seems to beggar belief. I can't imagine anyone handing over that amount of cash just to avoid 'bad publicity', unless they thought part of the bad publicity was going to be a jury verdict even higher.

And the reason for *that* would seem to be that MSU's lawyers and doctors advised them that Nassar did indeed do much wrong, and thus an adverse jury verdict was likely.

Nobody can imagine it, because the concept is preposterous.

Well, the president of University of Southern California stepped down because of an on campus doctor also molested college age women. There is a law suit against the school as well. How many schools out there is like this? You have the Penn. State issue, then you have the Florida State problem, then the Baylor football players rapping ladies, the Michigan State Nassir issue, and now the USC scandal. All are facing lawsuits with a lot of money being spend to settle these claims. The victims are getting money and justice for these issues. The Florida State case was the lone exception because Winston is not behind bars where he should be for his acts and FSU tried to swept it under the rug. But, FSU did settled the case. The only reason you settle a case was that you were in the wrong in your acts trying to have these scandals come to the spotlight. All these schools have their image damaged.