Please sign!!!

[irishsquid]

That sort of petition makes more sense and has a better chance of "making a difference" then one which is essentially "calling for the guy's head".

Along with Dive Flag Awareness, make real laws with stiffer penalties for ignoring dive flag laws. Make boaters responsible for the handling of their water-craft and their actions. Personally, I think he should be in jail just like any negligent driver involved in a hit and run in a school zone, crosswalk, or other speed limited/special operation area should be. Being a Dr. makes no difference to me (I think he should probably find another profession since he obviously doesn't care about people, maybe politician).

 

[Walter]

Dr Nicosia is being charged with a misdemeanor. The petition is merely calling for him to be charged with a third degree felony as provided for under Florida law. I'm quite happy to have signed the petition.

 

[JeffG]

Can't the diver sue the doctor in civil court?

 

[ScubaSteve]

I still find it hard to believe that there is no obligation on the part of a professional to act when called upon. I suppose there must not be otherwise I am sure a lawsuit would have been started.

Well, everybody knows what :mooner: this goof is now. Hopefully everybody will steer well clear of him and end him professionally that way if he cannot lose it through other means. I would not trust him to wipe my nose now seeing how he (fails to) acts when needed.

 

[JeffG]

I still find it hard to believe that there is no obligation on the part of a professional to act when called upon. I suppose there must not be otherwise I am sure a lawsuit would have been started.

Canada has the "Good Samaritan" law, protecting qualified people from helping others. I do not believe that the US does. So if he helped, he would open himself to also be sued.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Canada has the "Good Samaritan" law, protecting qualified people from helping others. I do not believe that the US does. So if he helped, he would open himself to also be sued.

He knowingly left someone there to die when he was qualified (and morally obligated if he had any) to render aid so it is pretty obvious that there is nothing good about him IMO.

 

[ScubaSteve]

A quick google search came up with this....I am not implying that it does or does not apply.....just offering it for discussion.

GOOD SAMARITAN ACT

(STATUTES)​

Disclaimer: This is part of the 2008 version of Florida Statutes and it is offered for general information purposes. The statutes on this site should not be relied on without reviewing your legal situation with an experienced medical malpractice lawyer and making sure you are using the appropriate version of the statute for your case. The provisions applicable to your potential claim may or may not be the version that was in effect at the time of the incident because some changes to statutes are retroactive and some changes are not. Other statutes and other case law interpreting or applying these statutes may also apply to your case. ​

(The information on this site applies to Florida only)​

768.13 Good Samaritan Act; immunity from civil liability.-- (1) This act shall be known and cited as the "Good Samaritan Act."
(2)(a) Any person, including those licensed to practice medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment either in direct response to emergency situations related to and arising out of a public health emergency declared pursuant to s. 381.00315, a state of emergency which has been declared pursuant to s. 252.36 or at the scene of an emergency outside of a hospital, doctor's office, or other place having proper medical equipment, without objection of the injured victim or victims thereof, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(b)1. Any health care provider, including a hospital licensed under chapter 395, providing emergency services pursuant to obligations imposed by 42 U.S.C. s. 1395dd, s. 395.1041, s. 395.401, or s. 401.45 shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such medical care or treatment unless such damages result from providing, or failing to provide, medical care or treatment under circumstances demonstrating a reckless disregard for the consequences so as to affect the life or health of another.
2. The immunity provided by this paragraph applies to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment, including diagnosis:
a. Which occurs prior to the time the patient is stabilized and is capable of receiving medical treatment as a nonemergency patient, unless surgery is required as a result of the emergency within a reasonable time after the patient is stabilized, in which case the immunity provided by this paragraph applies to any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment which occurs prior to the stabilization of the patient following the surgery.
b. Which is related to the original medical emergency.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, "reckless disregard" as it applies to a given health care provider rendering emergency medical services shall be such conduct that a health care provider knew or should have known, at the time such services were rendered, created an unreasonable risk of injury so as to affect the life or health of another, and such risk was substantially greater than that which is necessary to make the conduct negligent.
4. Every emergency care facility granted immunity under this paragraph shall accept and treat all emergency care patients within the operational capacity of such facility without regard to ability to pay, including patients transferred from another emergency care facility or other health care provider pursuant to Pub. L. No. 99-272, s. 9121. The failure of an emergency care facility to comply with this subparagraph constitutes grounds for the department to initiate disciplinary action against the facility pursuant to chapter 395.
(c)1. Any health care practitioner as defined in s. 456.001(4) who is in a hospital attending to a patient of his or her practice or for business or personal reasons unrelated to direct patient care, and who voluntarily responds to provide care or treatment to a patient with whom at that time the practitioner does not have a then-existing health care patient-practitioner relationship, and when such care or treatment is necessitated by a sudden or unexpected situation or by an occurrence that demands immediate medical attention, shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of any act or omission relative to that care or treatment, unless that care or treatment is proven to amount to conduct that is willful and wanton and would likely result in injury so as to affect the life or health of another.
2. The immunity provided by this paragraph does not apply to damages as a result of any act or omission of providing medical care or treatment unrelated to the original situation that demanded immediate medical attention.
3. For purposes of this paragraph, the Legislature's intent is to encourage health care practitioners to provide necessary emergency care to all persons without fear of litigation as described in this paragraph.
(d) Any person whose acts or omissions are not otherwise covered by this section and who participates in emergency response activities under the direction of or in connection with a community emergency response team, local emergency management agencies, the Division of Emergency Management of the Department of Community Affairs, or the Federal Emergency Management Agency is not liable for any civil damages as a result of care, treatment, or services provided gratuitously in such capacity and resulting from any act or failure to act in such capacity in providing or arranging further care, treatment, or services, if such person acts as a reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.
(3) Any person, including those licensed to practice veterinary medicine, who gratuitously and in good faith renders emergency care or treatment to an injured animal at the scene of an emergency on or adjacent to a roadway shall not be held liable for any civil damages as a result of such care or treatment or as a result of any act or failure to act in providing or arranging further medical treatment where the person acts as an ordinary reasonably prudent person would have acted under the same or similar circumstances.

Taken from

768.13- Florida Statutes - Good Samaritan Act - Reckless Disregard Standard in Emergency Room

 

[JeffG]

He knowingly left someone there to die when he was qualified (and morally obligated if he had any) to render aid so it is pretty obvious that there is nothing good about him IMO.

I happen to agree, but when talking about some kind of resolution. Either criminal or civil...then it must be placed in context of the system. Sad but true. We can all pine about vigilante justice, but big whoop.

Its like the story's you hear about getting into a car accident in Mexico. That you are better off making sure the guy is dead or its better to leave the scene and leave him/her to die.

 

[idocsteve]

Well, everybody knows what :mooner: this goof is now. Hopefully everybody will steer well clear of him and end him professionally that way if he cannot lose it through other means. I would not trust him to wipe my nose now seeing how he (fails to) acts when needed.

Sure they don't.

You think the next guy who he treats in the ER is gonna say "Wait a minute, you're the dude who ran over that Scuba Diver! I want a different doctor!"

I don't think so.

You probably wouldn't recognize him yourself if you were the one being treated in a hospital ER.