Brand X

Just because a procedure is performed and isn't done in the typical "normal" fashion, does that mean that someone else gets to sue because of it? I mean, if the outcome was, for all intents and purposes, essentially the same as it would have been if things were done according to the book, why would you sue? Because you're hypersensitive and think that you'll get a big payday. Hopefully, in this instance, that will prove to be wrong.

Here's the story according to those smoky folks over there at The Smoking Gun. It seems that a one 47-year old hairdresser, a Mrs. Ingrid Paulicivic, went to a doctor for a hysterectomy. The doctor, a one 50-year old Dr. Red Alinsod, performed the procedure for her. When returning to Dr. Alinsod's office for a follow-up appointment, she asked him about some small burn marks that she noticed on her thighs. He told her that it was nothing to worry about. See, what had happened was that after he had removed her uterus, he used some sort of a cauterizing tool to brand her name onto her removed organ and she must have suffered some minor burns in the process. That's all. Wait. He did what?

Correct. He took her uterus out and then branded her name, Ingrid, onto the removed uterus. Everything about this story has a question attached to it, so I'll try and keep up with any that you may have racing through your head right now. If you're wondering if this is some sort of obscure medical procedure, let me assure you that it is not. The good doctor claims that his reason for branding the uterus with the woman's name was because he “did not want to get it confused with others.” And usually what they do, instead of all of the burning of patient's names in recently removed body part, is to write the patient’s name "... on an accompanying blue sterile towel or a sterile piece of wood like a tongue depressor." Uh-huh. I see. Yeah, there's not way that you could get confused and think to do it the other way. Hmm.

I really cannot figure out what the big deal is. I mean, her uterus was removed, correct? Correct. What in the hell does she care what he does with it when she's done with it? I can understand being a little upset that the guy apparently mishandled his uterine carving tool and slightly burned her thighs. That I get. But I would I be suing over it? Hardly. You know what else I wouldn't be suing for? Loss of consortium, that is correct.

See, she's a married woman. And her husband, Joe Paulicivic, claims that he has been “permanently injured and damaged” due to the resulting loss of consortium with his wife." Hmm. Dude, she had her uterus taken out. I would expect that there might be a little loss of consortium just from that alone, but I don't really know. Can anyone help me with this one? Gerard? You seem to have a variety of sexual endeavors. Ever done it with someone who was sans uterus? What's that like? (By the way, that's Mr. Paulicivic over there on the left. Perhaps if he lost the big cross medallion, he might find himself more consortiable. I'm just saying.)

All of the logistics aside, how do small burns on your wife's thighs prevent you from getting all consortium-y with her? I don't think that they do. This whole lawsuit is obviously pointless. And if you'd like to read the filing and decide for yourself, you may do so by clicking here. Look, I don't know why the doctor did what he did, but he wasn't hurting anyone. What was going to happen to that uterus after it was taken out of commission? It gets thrown away, right? So, who the hell cares if it gets thrown away with her name on it or not? It's not like he was feeding it to the stray cats in the alley out back. But even if he was, would that be so bad? Sure, it would be disgusting (for some reason), but would it hurt anyone? No, of course not.

I just don't get people like this. You're not entitled to any money there, cupcake. And neither are you, Mr. Cupcake. Just go back to whatever you were doing before all of the suing and knock it off. Try a little consortium. Maybe that will help.

Is That A Burrito In Your Pants Or Are You Just Happy To See Me?

I almost hesitate to start off with a quote from the article over there at WFTV.com in (of course) Orlando, Flori-duh. I mean, it sums things up really well, but I don't know if I can do any better than what they've already wrote. Some acts are hard to follow and this might just be one of them. I guess I'd better suck it up and give it a shot. Here we go...Today we learned that "The Brevard County doctor who was arrested for groping a woman while dressed as Captain America with a burrito in his pants will not go to jail." See what I mean?

Wait. Captain America? With a...a...burrito? Was it? I don't know that I really want to know, but I know that I really have to ask. What in the hell was he doing with a burrito in his pants? Was it a snack for later? Good Lord, I certainly hope not. Let's continue and see if we can noodle this one through, shall we?

The article that I linked to is rather brief. It does say, however, that "...Doctor Raymond Adamcik will take part in a diversion program for first time offenders". There is a program for people dressed like superheroes with a south-of-the-border delicacy cradled within their undergarments?! Don't get me wrong. Those people are definitely in need of some sort of program. I'm just stunned that one exists, is all. What do you call that, anyway? Never mind. I'm not sure that any of us really want to know.

The circumstances are a bit vague if I'm just referring to that article as well. And really, the circumstances that are cited raise more questions than they seem to answer. When I read, "Adamcik was arrested in April during a bar crawl for medical professionals", I really want to know more. Not much more, but more. For instance, what sort of medical professionals go on a bar crawl dressed as wacky superheroes? That seems like a fairly relevant question for one to pose, doesn't it?

I did find another story over at WFTV.com that gave a few more details on what in the world went on in the first place (which was in 2007, by the way. Why this has taken so long is beyond me.). See, "Everything was fine until...Captain America started getting too forward with a burrito he kept tucked inside his blue tights." The fact that he was there at all with a burrito in his pants, regardless as to which defender of truth, justice and the American way he was dressed as, really doesn't indicate everything was fine.

And it went from "not fine" to "effing weird" really quickly. The doctor (yes, he's really a doctor) "...was asking women if they want to touch it. When one refused, he allegedly took out the burrito and groped her." Ah, yes. The ol' "Wanna touch my burrito?" pick up line. I'm surprised it ended as poorly as it did. Seems like such a winner.

After the woman called the police, there was kind of a problem. See, "...there were so many cartoon characters in the bar at the time, all Captain America's were asked to go outside for a possible identification." It's not likely he would have been able to get away with it, as "The woman pointed out Adamcik and the burrito was found in his boot." In his boot?! What the hell kind of boots does Captain America have where you can shove a burrito in them? What else was in there? Did they find any chalupas? (No, that's not a euphemism.) While I don't know about the chalupas, I do know that I found a mugshot of Captain Gordita Grundle there. Behold!

Charming. Do we have it in color? Maybe a little closer up? Of course we do. Behold!
It still isn't clear why it took three years to resolve, but the article did state that after the arrest "Adamcik was checking himself into a rehab program ". There are rehab programs for something like this?! For reals?? Then again, I guess if there are rehab programs for made up crap like sex addiction, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that there are rehab programs for tucking Mexican delicacies within the coverings of one's nether regions. I shouldn't be surprised. But I kind of am. Just a little bit. A little.