S09.E19: Where Are They Now? Jeanne and Brandon

[Elizzikra]

5 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

TLC is showing the rerun tonight, 5 June, 9 to 11 p.m. Central, if anyone wants to watch it.    May I suggest you don't have a late evening snack while watching this episode.  

I'm half glad I watched - the half with Brandon. He is an inspiration.

[libgirl2]

I watched a bit of it. The demands she was making! Dog sitters? IT made me wonder just how much the production company does for these people in the first place because maybe that is why she expected more.

Her and her mother are really gross people. 

Did they ever win their lawsuit? 

Edited June 6 by libgirl2

[CrazyInAlabama]

The late father was the dog sitter, with him gone they didn't have anyone to watch the dogs.  That's why she demanded dog sitters, and everything else.  

Jeanne and her mother tried to sue the production company for all kinds of things, but I never heard anything about it.    Dr. Now apparently paid for the medical transport to get her, and her mother home after the father died, and I'm guessing someone drove the van back for them.    

I read that the mother lost a lot of weight and was doing very well, thanks to Dr. Now and the other medical care that saved her life.   Jeanne posted for a while on FB, but I never saw much about her.    

All lawsuits were tossed:

 

https://tcjl.com/corpus-christi-court-of-appeals-tosses-suit-against-producer-of-my-600-lb-life/

Edited June 6 by CrazyInAlabama

[LeesburgLee]

I can’t get past the fact that Dr Now found dog hair in the mother's surgical wound. Good lord!

[Elizzikra]

4 hours ago, LeesburgLee said:

I can’t get past the fact that Dr Now found dog hair in the mother's surgical wound. Good lord!

I have a lot of dogs and I'd like think that even I could manage to keep dog hair out of a healing incision. Actually - I know I would since I had surgery a few years back and did not end up with an incision infected with dog hair and god knows what else. 

I know why Jeanne's hygiene was so poor but what was Barbara's excuse? She was mobile and capable of cleaning herself.

[libgirl2]

13 minutes ago, Elizzikra said:

I have a lot of dogs and I'd like think that even I could manage to keep dog hair out of a healing incision. Actually - I know I would since I had surgery a few years back and did not end up with an incision infected with dog hair and god knows what else. 

I know why Jeanne's hygiene was so poor but what was Barbara's excuse? She was mobile and capable of cleaning herself.

I have a cat and I had two surgeries several years back. I had no hair in my incision. I kept it clean and covered as it healed. I think it is just ignorance and poor hygiene even if she can get around just fine. Did you see what the incision looked like? OMG! 

[Elizzikra]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

I have a cat and I had two surgeries several years back. I had no hair in my incision. I kept it clean and covered as it healed. I think it is just ignorance and poor hygiene even if she can get around just fine. Did you see what the incision looked like? OMG! 

I have a pretty strong stomach but I had to look away after a couple of seconds.

I actually thought that if Jeanne ever did get it together to lose weight, she would never be able to survive skin removal surgery unless they cleaned that house and worked on her hygiene. There is not a chance in hell she could keep those incisions clean and uninfected. Since she hightailed it out of the program as soon as she got her surgery, I guess that won't be an issue though.

[TVbitch]

That lawsuit link had some interesting stuff in it...

The plaintiffs offered affidavit testimony that the producer “forced them to do voiceovers for their episodes for up to fourteen hours a day, would ‘threaten’ [them] with breach of contract if they refused or tried to stop, and ‘subjected [them] to routine, repeated[,] and ongoing harassment.” They were likewise “forced . . . to lie to ‘create dramatic effect’ and to eat things they did not want to while on camera.”  The court of appeals held that this evidence did not rise to the level of “extreme and outrageous” conduct required by SCOTX. Such conduct must be “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community” [citing Hersh v. Tatum, 526 S.W.3d 462, 468 (Tex. 2017)].