Re: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingency Fees

[Paul lavely <lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Title: Re: (Mostly off-topic) Fallout and PTSD and Contingenc

In response to Ruth Weiner.

First, I do not see this discussion as off topic. It strikes to the heart of communication of risks to the public and their perception of risk.

> In a message dated 3/9/02 4:57:46 PM Mountain
>
> Standard Time, lavelyp@UCLINK4.BERKELEY.EDU writes:
>
>
>
> > 1 Can you prove TMI (or something/someone associated
> >
> > with the accident) caused the PTSD? If no, end. If yes go to 2.
> >
> > 2 Can you show that the behavior was negligent or intentional? If no,
> >
> > end. If yes go to 3.
> >
> > 3 Can you show that the conduct was outrageous and shocked the senses?
> >
> > If no, end. If yes go to 4.
> >
> > 4 Can you fashion an appropriate remedy? If no, end. If yes go to
> >
> > 5.
> >
> > 5 Do you think that you can find a jury who will agree with each of
> >
> > the above AND will give a judgement that would make taking the case
> >
> > worthwhile?

> Again, mostly off-topic.  I just finished my very first service
>
> on a jury (a criminal, not a civil case as this one would be) and I
>
> learned a lot.  The relevant thing I learned is that the ENTIRE
>
> burden of any proof is on the plaintiff, at least in a criminal case.
>
>  So the plaintiff would have to prove 1 through 4 beyond a
>
> reasonable doubt.

The "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is not the standard for torts.

STANDARD OF PROOF - The amount of evidence which a plaintiff (or prosecuting attorney, in a criminal case) must present in a trial in order to win is called the standard of proof. Different cases require different standards of proof depending on what is at stake. The common standards are:
* Beyond a reasonable doubt (criminal cases)--for a criminal defendant to be convicted of a crime, the prosecutor must prove her case to the point that the jurors have no reasonable doubts in their minds that the defendant did whatever he is charged with having done.
* Clear and convincing evidence (civil cases involving the potential loss of important interests such as the termination of parental rights)--for a party to prove a case under this standard, she must show something more than it is more likely than not, but not as much as beyond a reasonable doubt. No legal scholar has ever been able to define clear and convincing evidence more precisely than that.

* Preponderance of the evidence (most civil cases including fault divorces)--preponderance of the evidence generally means that a party will win if she can show that it is more likely than not that her contention is true.

Rather than using Westlaw or some hard to find legal reference (how many of us have a Black's Law Dictionary on their bookshelf?) the above is from http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s217.htm

> On another point:  I do not doubt that TMI was
>
> a frightening experience when it happened, even though the fear may
>
> have been induced mostly by government uncertainty and the media.
>
>  However, did it really cause post-traumatic stress -- a stress
>
> disorder that recurred after the event?

I do not believe that you are correct about fear at the time of occurrence. Perhaps you can point to a reference that supports this position. This is not in keeping with my first hand experience. Additionally, everything I have read about peoples response to these type of experiences is that they experienced fear.

Since PTSD is an individual response I can not answer if anyone who showed PTSD had it caused by TMI.

>  people who "were there" at
>
> TMI:

At the time TMI occurred I was the Radiation Protection Manager for Fermi units ! and 2 located between Toledo and Detroit. It took a few days for us to arrange with GPU (TMI) as to what they needed from us. It then took a few days to get agreement from legal that we should be doing this. A few days later we loaded the "supplies" into my assistant's car and off they went to TMI. They stayed for about 3-4 months.

I had duties at home and at Fermi and was delayed about a month. I stayed in the Hershey PA area at a combination KOA campground and motel on 743 (I think).

I worked at the plant 5 to 7 days a week, 8 to 12 hours a day for about 5 months. I did not get to do much job coverage. The RPM asked me to be the "ALARA coordinator" at the RWP issue station and entry control point for the unit. My major job was to review Rad Work Permits for dose/contamination issues. To do that I asked those who wanted to enter these questions: what do you plan to do, where will you be going, will this transfer any materials around, does this need to be done or done now? I estimate that I turned away 3 to 5 folks a day who were simply there to "see the sights." The one singular event I remember was two "government" engineers who wanted to enter the containment and even though the rad levels were still "high" and no containment entry had been made yet they offered to "report me" if I did not start "cooperating."  A call to their boss and they were "collected" and never seen again.

I made friends with the KOA/motel folks. Even had diner with them a few times. Through them I was able to meet and talk to a lot of the local folks. When the locals found out what I did (and that I was not from GPU or the government) they opened up started relating their personal experiences of the accident. Several were in tears as they described the fear they felt for the safety of either themselves or (more typically) their family.

I still worry when other than those trained in psychiatry try to practice psychiatry or offer opinions on what is, what is not, what causes, what does not cause, what could cause, and what should not cause or result a psychiatric condition or what could appear to be a psychiatric condition as defined in the DSM.

I now add that I worry when other than those trained in law try to practice law or offer opinions on what is, what is not the law.

Paul Lavely

(and yes, I am trained/educated in law)

<lavelyp@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

--