I caught the repeat of this episode after 2 am. Alfred Molina plays a medical doctor who's a tough hospital administrator and puts his staff on the spot when they screw up in the show's various situations. This show is multi-faceted.
A situation in last night's show involved one brilliant male neurosurgeon who was examined in discoveries by a plaintiff's lawyer for causing the end of the plaintiff's marriage to a surgeon who's an attractive co-worker.
The lawyer is a familiar actor who I can't name but he's been in another episode and is real good at making anyone squirm in their seat.
The neurosurgeon didn't know how to react to the lawyer who was trying to blame him for the marriage breakdown and stress caused to the other male. He leaves the examination room when the lawyer asks him how many times he had sex with the doctoress. Then he resumes the next day to the following line of questioning.
The lawyer asked him to confirm this aberrant behaviour, but the neurosurgeon didn't say it was aberrant (lawyer's sneaky reverse psychology to entrap the neurosurgeon into defending his behaviour only to dig himself into a deeper hole). The lawyer asks him, 'Oh, how so? Name three?'. The doctor says "I'm not going to name you names!". The lawyer taunts him again that he doesn't believe him. The doctor says, "Oh , at least 20 cases". Lawyer says, "In this hospital? Is this the policy of this hospital?"
At that point, the doctor's own lawyer says "That's it, we're done here". After they leave, the hospital's lawyer says to the neurosurgeon, "He's going after the hospital now so I can't represent you as it's a conflict of interest. You'll have to retain your own counsel".
===============================================
Anyways, this is just a TV program and the dialogue will play out according to the script, but I can't understand how that neurosurgeon didn't say that marriage must've been troubled already when the lawyer asked him if he considered the effect that his adulterous liaisons would have on his client's well-being.
I know that you can be sued for anything, but isn't divorce a no-fault issue in the U.S. between spouses like it is here in Ontario/Canada? If no-fault, you'd think that the person with whom someone was having an affair with would be without 'fault' too, no? Also, have you ever been in discoveries or under cross-examination at trial? I have had experience in this but you must be careful not to be caught in a lawyer's trap.
It was a thought-provoking show.
What are your thoughts on the above?
P.S. In the end, Alfred Molina calls out the adulterous couple and says, "When in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas. Thanks to you two, now the hospital is being sued." Those two doctors sunk into their seats (the neurosurgeon later met the female doctor at their usual watering hole looking glum. She said it was her fault. He said he wanted something serious to happen between them. So it should make for some interesting drama in future episodes).
A situation in last night's show involved one brilliant male neurosurgeon who was examined in discoveries by a plaintiff's lawyer for causing the end of the plaintiff's marriage to a surgeon who's an attractive co-worker.
The lawyer is a familiar actor who I can't name but he's been in another episode and is real good at making anyone squirm in their seat.
The neurosurgeon didn't know how to react to the lawyer who was trying to blame him for the marriage breakdown and stress caused to the other male. He leaves the examination room when the lawyer asks him how many times he had sex with the doctoress. Then he resumes the next day to the following line of questioning.
The lawyer asked him to confirm this aberrant behaviour, but the neurosurgeon didn't say it was aberrant (lawyer's sneaky reverse psychology to entrap the neurosurgeon into defending his behaviour only to dig himself into a deeper hole). The lawyer asks him, 'Oh, how so? Name three?'. The doctor says "I'm not going to name you names!". The lawyer taunts him again that he doesn't believe him. The doctor says, "Oh , at least 20 cases". Lawyer says, "In this hospital? Is this the policy of this hospital?"
At that point, the doctor's own lawyer says "That's it, we're done here". After they leave, the hospital's lawyer says to the neurosurgeon, "He's going after the hospital now so I can't represent you as it's a conflict of interest. You'll have to retain your own counsel".
===============================================
Anyways, this is just a TV program and the dialogue will play out according to the script, but I can't understand how that neurosurgeon didn't say that marriage must've been troubled already when the lawyer asked him if he considered the effect that his adulterous liaisons would have on his client's well-being.
I know that you can be sued for anything, but isn't divorce a no-fault issue in the U.S. between spouses like it is here in Ontario/Canada? If no-fault, you'd think that the person with whom someone was having an affair with would be without 'fault' too, no? Also, have you ever been in discoveries or under cross-examination at trial? I have had experience in this but you must be careful not to be caught in a lawyer's trap.
It was a thought-provoking show.
What are your thoughts on the above?
P.S. In the end, Alfred Molina calls out the adulterous couple and says, "When in Vegas doesn't always stay in Vegas. Thanks to you two, now the hospital is being sued." Those two doctors sunk into their seats (the neurosurgeon later met the female doctor at their usual watering hole looking glum. She said it was her fault. He said he wanted something serious to happen between them. So it should make for some interesting drama in future episodes).
