Possible lawsuit from a new grad I was only trying to help

KelRN215, BSN, RN · May 9, 2015

That's actually really, really illegal and if it IS happening needs to be reported.

No it isn't. The law only says that workers must be paid minimum wage, it doesn't require anyone to be paid more than that.

BuckyBadgerRN, ASN, RN · May 9, 2015

Hackles as in "another post threatening to make a bunch of posters on an look like blooming idiots when yet another of these rash of nonsense posts started by trolls gets exposed for what it realy is"

and in classic troll fashion, op hasn't been back.

macawake, MSN · May 9, 2015

Well now she has hired a lawyer and is claiming harassment.

The title of this thread says possible lawsuit. Has a lawsuit in fact been filed or are you concerned that it might? I don't think that you've provided even close to enough information for us (anonymous outsiders) to figure out if you've done something that actually warrants a lawsuit or complaint with management/HR or if what's transpired between the two of you makes the other nurse's actions completely off-the-wall inappropriate.

If this is a genuine and ongoing situation you probably shouldn't provide any more details but instead protect yourself and take the good advice offered by previous posters.

I have to admit that how you worded your posts makes me wonder about a few things.

I am an LVN and have worked in skilled rehab facilities for almost 5 years. I love it and lets be honest 40 patients is not for most nurses.

Is this your indirect way of saying that you don't think that caring for 40 patients is this new nurse's "thing"? (I know it's certainly not my thing :wideyed: ) Or was this just a general contemplation on the reality of working in a rehab facility?

I have tried to help her and have been very forward with her

Being forward can mean many different things. I'd say it spans all the way from being clear, succinct and informative in a helpful and supportive manner to being needlessly hurtful and insulting in a spirit-breaking manner. I don't know you and you've provided no details so I genuinely have no way of knowing what's been said and how it's been said.

she is dense and not receptive

Hmm... I assume that you mean in the "stupid, obtuse and dull-witted" sense and not the "thickly crowded or closely set" sense? This part of your post is actually what bothered me most. Have you shared your assessment of her intellectual capacity with others, for example your coworkers? If you have, it's probably a good idea to stop. Has your demeanour made it obvious to the new nurse that this is what you think of her?

Maybe it's just me but I'd have been more sympathetic if you'd explained that despite your doing a, b, and c your new grad coworker doesn't seem to be picking up things as fast as she should and needs to (or whatever the problem might be). I don't like the more passive-aggressive/indirect route of calling a person stupid.

I heard a lot of new nurses are claiming this type of harassment.

Aah.. I believe that this is what's lovingly referred to as nety on this site.. It's quite a popular and incendiary topic :rolleyes: I must admit that my radar does ping ever so slightly when a first-time poster brings up this highly flammable particular subject matter.

I realize that I'm being slightly unfair and that I'm placing you in a bit of a Catch-22 situation. If you are indeed having legal troubles with this coworker it's really in your best interest to not come back here and provide further details, and at the same time not posting will likely be seen as evidence that you were engaging in a wee bit of trolling. Sorry about that.

mc3, ASN, RN · May 9, 2015

I just wonder why she didn't just ask to take a break at specific times to go and pray. Seems strange to put the prayer rug down in a patient's room and begin to pray. I would cringe if she did that in an isolation room.

And I sure wouldn't like it if I were the patient.....

mc3:nurse:

banterings · May 13, 2015

Hackles as in "another post threatening to make a bunch of posters on an look like blooming idiots when yet another of these rash of nonsense posts started by trolls gets exposed for what it realy is"
and in classic troll fashion, op hasn't been back.

Or are you confusing it with "heckle?"

verb: to interrupt (someone, such as a speaker or performer) by shouting annoying or rude comments or questions
transitive verb: to harass and try to disconcert with questions, challenges, or gibes :
Source: Merriam Webster Dictionary Online

As to law suits, anyone remember Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (also known as the McDonald's coffee case)?

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants was a 1994 product liability lawsuit that became a flashpoint in the debate in the United States over tort reform. A New Mexico civil jury awarded $2.86 million to plaintiff Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman who suffered third-degree burns in her pelvic region when she accidentally spilled hot coffee in her lap after purchasing it from a McDonald's restaurant. Liebeck was hospitalized for eight days while she underwent skin grafting, followed by two years of medical treatment.

Although the poster child for frivolous lawsuits, it is not as frivolous as one might think, there is also some (gross) negligence involved. In all fairness there is much that is not usually written such as:

...(Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true.) Liebeck placed the cup between her knees and attempted to remove the plastic lid from the cup. As she removed the lid, the entire contents of the cup spilled into her lap.
The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.
During discovery, McDonalds produced documents showing more than 700 claims by people burned by its coffee between 1982 and 1992. Some claims involved third-degree burns substantially similar to Liebecks. This history documented McDonalds' knowledge about the extent and nature of this hazard.
McDonalds also said during discovery that, based on a consultants advice, it held its coffee at between 180 and 190 degrees fahrenheit to maintain optimum taste. He admitted that he had not evaluated the safety ramifications at this temperature. Other establishments sell coffee at substantially lower temperatures, and coffee served at home is generally 135 to 140 degrees.
Further, McDonalds' quality assurance manager testified that the company actively enforces a requirement that coffee be held in the pot at 185 degrees, plus or minus five degrees. He also testified that a burn hazard exists with any food substance served at 140 degrees or above, and that McDonalds coffee, at the temperature at which it was poured into styrofoam cups, was not fit for consumption because it would burn the mouth and throat. The quality assurance manager admitted that burns would occur, but testified that McDonalds had no intention of reducing the "holding temperature" of its coffee.
McDonalds asserted that customers buy coffee on their way to work or home, intending to consume it there. However, the companys own research showed that customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.
McDonalds also argued that consumers know coffee is hot and that its customers want it that way. The company admitted its customers were unaware that they could suffer thirddegree burns from the coffee and that a statement on the side of the cup was not a "warning" but a "reminder" since the location of the writing would not warn customers of the hazard.
The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages. This amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault in the spill. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which equals about two days of McDonalds' coffee sales.
Post-verdict investigation found that the temperature of coffee at the local Albuquerque McDonalds had dropped to 158 degrees fahrenheit.
The trial court subsequently reduced the punitive award to $480,000 -- or three times compensatory damages -- even though the judge called McDonalds' conduct reckless, callous and willful.
No one will ever know the final ending to this case.
The parties eventually entered into a secret settlement which has never been revealed to the public Source: The Lectric Law Library

My point with the Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants is there may be more credibility to the claim than people see. (Not saying that the OP INTENTIONALLY did anything wrong, but the suit may have substance in the eyes of the law.) Here are some truly frivolous lawsuits that have been tossed (to compare the above law suit to):

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn't have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn't like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

In 1998, Kellogg sued Exxon because customers might confuse the gas station's "whimsical tiger logo" with Kellogg's mascot, "Tony the Tiger." It didn't matter, of course, that Exxon had already been using this logo for 30 years. A federal court tossed the suit. Kellogg appealed the case claiming the Exxon tiger walks and acts just like Kellogg's "Tony."

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn't earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

In 1996, Florida physical therapist Paul Shimkonis sued his local nudie bar claiming whiplash from a lap dancer's large breasts. Shimkonis felt he suffered physical harm and mental anguish from the breasts, which he claimed felt like "cement blocks" hitting him. Shimkonis sought justice in the amount of $15,000, which was denied.

Been there,done that, ASN, RN · Jun 2, 2015

Long time reader, first time poster? My hackles are raised....

Several thoughtful responses.. OP has not been back.If I were being sued I'd be responding and discussing this.

Agree with you, but I think it's our spidey senses are tingling