Wait training | Marcel Strigberger

Impatient J.:

This is an action for damages by Melvin Alvin, lawyer, against Dr. Arthur Coopersmith, dermatologist. The plaintiff visited the offices of the good doctor to deal with a boil on his neck. The appointment was scheduled for 10:30 a.m., but he was not seen until 12:45 p.m. He notes that the defendant doctor met him for about five minutes during which he prescribed some ointment. The plaintiff pleads that the wait time was excessive and egregious, and since “time is money,” the next day he sent the doctor a bill for $1,000 representing two hours of his billable time.

At the commencement of this trial, the defendant asked that I recuse myself from hearing this case if I was ever kept waiting by a doctor and did not like it. I denied the motion on the basis that although doctors have consistently wasted hours of my life keeping me waiting unnecessarily like an idiot in their crowded unpleasant waiting rooms, overcrowded with patients obsessed with their cellphones, it never really bothered me. After all, I am a judge of the law. I am totally objective. Yes.

The good lawyer plaintiff Alvin, whom I shall refer to as Melvin, testified that he intended to spend the morning in question preparing for a divorce trial. He expected to be seen as scheduled at 10:30, by Dr. Coopersmith, whom I shall refer to as the defendant. He notes that he even called the defendant’s office before attending to assess any possible waiting time. He spoke to the receptionist, one Gladys, who said, “The doctor is busy seeing many patients. He will see you this morning. Ha ha! Most important, don’t forget your health insurance information …”         
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Melvin argues several points of law justifying his claim.  His first argument is that the defendant is liable for forcible confinement. True Melvin, the good lawyer could have picked up and left but that boil on his neck was too irritating and, out of necessity, he had no choice but to hang in there like an idiot in that crowded unpleasant waiting room, overcrowded with patients obsessed with their cellphones, until he was seen by this physician totally inconsiderate of his patients’ time. I find there was a clear case of forcible confinement here.

Melvin also argues that the defendant is liable for intentionally causing alarm and distress. He testified that at around 10:54, he was getting agitated waiting, and he asked Gladys to check with the defendant how much longer he would have to wait. His evidence was that Gladys replied, in the style of Charles Dickens’s Madame Defarge, “Nobody interrupts the doctor. Ha ha.” She then went back to her knitting.

As well, the poor plaintiff Melvin pleads liability in negligence. He claims that there was a duty of care owed by the defendant doctor to his patients to make them feel good, not traumatized. He refers to some well-established case law noting that physicians have for centuries systemically kept patients waiting.  He cites the iconic keep waiting case going back to the days of Chaucer, The Man of Law v. The Mean Physiciane, 31 C.C.C. (Court of Crazy Cases), p. 113. This was an action started by a lawyer, one William of Yorke, who during a pilgrimage to Canterbury came down with a fever. He consulted his fellow pilgrim the doctor, and he was kept waiting for five hours before being seen. The trial judge, one Lord Gerald, noted, “Five hours? That’s way too long to be seen and treated with leeches. The good lawyer should not have had to wait more than minutes before seeing a leech. A plague on the defendant.”

Another case cited was Robin of Loxley v. Sherwood Forest Associates, 29 Not Nottingham Reports (N.N.R.), p. 311, where the plaintiff successfully sued a group of physicians for showing up three hours late when making a house call to Robin Hood and his merry men. The judge, Little Arnold J., awarded Robin Hood a sum of 280 shillings representing what he could have earned during this downtime, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. The poor incidentally joined the action as intervenors.

This court finds Melvin had made a case against the defendant on all of his arguments.

The evidence was that his claim for damages for time lost was clearly foreseeable. After waiting about 15 minutes, the plaintiff Melvin told Gladys, “Hey, my billable time is $500 per hour … just letting you know. My meter is running.”

I find this evidence credible and foreseeable.

There will be judgment for the plaintiff as claimed, including legal costs. This award is to be paid forthwith.