Tuesday, August 30, 2005
A juror talks about being on a medical malpractice case
This blog does not tend to give jurors on malpractice cases very much credit. Here's one who sounds pretty reasonable - and I'm not just saying this because they found in favor of the physician:
This blog does not tend to give jurors on malpractice cases very much credit. Here's one who sounds pretty reasonable - and I'm not just saying this because they found in favor of the physician:
Obvious attempts to play on our sympathies (chemotherapy side effects listed repeatedly; three young children introduced to the jury; the horrific first-person account of a stage four cancer diagnosis; fears of reoccurence and secondary cancers; a lawyer struggling not to burst into tears at the end of a closing argument) didn't make for easy listening. It didn't help with meeting the burden of proof, either. Even though the threshold is lower in civil cases ("by a preponderance of the evidence" - more likely than not, instead of beyond a reasonable doubt) it still needs to be met.(via Universal Hub)
The case boiled down to a single question: was a doctor negligent because he failed to order a chest x-ray?
This is the question that took three weeks, multiple expert witnesses, subpoenaed doctors, dozens of medical records, copies of phone bills, and a couple of hours of deliberation to answer . . .
. . . This makes me think most cases aren't about punishing bad actors, they are about a broken system. They have very little do to with science but a lot to do with the modern practice of medicine, because they are about money.
Turns out the doctor we didn't find negligent has made two malpractice payments in the past ten years. The expert witness peripherally involved in treating the plaintiff (and who was called by the plaintiff to testify) made four.
Posted by Kevin |
link
| Comments (11)
| 
Comments:
Turns out the doctor we didn't find negligent has made two malpractice payments in the past ten years. The expert witness peripherally involved in treating the plaintiff (and who was called by the plaintiff to testify) made four.
No, no, say it ain't so! CJD and Dr. Elliot tell us that plaintiff lawyers hire only "experts" that are pristine and aren't in it for the easy money. They save us from these doctors who must be incompetent or else they wouldn't be on trial since lawyers don't file cases without merit.
No, no, say it ain't so! CJD and Dr. Elliot tell us that plaintiff lawyers hire only "experts" that are pristine and aren't in it for the easy money. They save us from these doctors who must be incompetent or else they wouldn't be on trial since lawyers don't file cases without merit.
# posted by 
: 4:48 PM
: 4:48 PM
CJD and Elliot's position is this:
"its the lawyers fault for not exposing the poor quality of hte expert"
"everybody has a right to a jury of hteir peers"
"the common man can be trusted to sort out the right issues. we werent at the trial so nothing an outsider says is valid. since these jurors were in the trial the whole time, they must know best"
Of course its all smokescreen hogwash to hide the reality that only an absolute naive fool believes that a layperson jury can sort thru the dueling experts and the (usually complicated) science behind med mal to come to a prudent decision. A decision that is based on medical facts and not other irrelevant nonsense such as how sorry they feel for the "victim"
"its the lawyers fault for not exposing the poor quality of hte expert"
"everybody has a right to a jury of hteir peers"
"the common man can be trusted to sort out the right issues. we werent at the trial so nothing an outsider says is valid. since these jurors were in the trial the whole time, they must know best"
Of course its all smokescreen hogwash to hide the reality that only an absolute naive fool believes that a layperson jury can sort thru the dueling experts and the (usually complicated) science behind med mal to come to a prudent decision. A decision that is based on medical facts and not other irrelevant nonsense such as how sorry they feel for the "victim"
# posted by : 9:21 PM
: 9:21 PM
I thought Mark Lanier proved it's who wears the nicer Wedding ring (he bought one especially for the trial) and glasses.
# posted by : 8:46 AM
: 8:46 AM
"Of course its all smokescreen hogwash to hide the reality that only an absolute naive fool believes that a layperson jury can sort thru the dueling experts and the (usually complicated) science behind med mal to come to a prudent decision. A decision that is based on medical facts and not other irrelevant nonsense such as how sorry they feel for the "victim""
Which is why the physician wins 3 times out of 4.
Which is why the physician wins 3 times out of 4.
# posted by : 4:33 PM
: 4:33 PM
Then get your law degree and go get rich if it's that easy.
Surely a smart guy like you can do it. After all, you're already wanting to retire early so you can move into a bubble to avoid litigation.
Surely a smart guy like you can do it. After all, you're already wanting to retire early so you can move into a bubble to avoid litigation.
'Of course its all smokescreen hogwash to hide the reality that only an absolute naive fool believes that a layperson jury can sort thru the dueling experts and the (usually complicated) science behind med mal to come to a prudent decision. A decision that is based on medical facts and not other irrelevant nonsense such as how sorry they feel for the "victim"'
Well, the quoted juror as well as other jurors on this case did. And they did have to sort out through a lot of complicated evidence. In some cases one thing that is required - and is not what most people posess - is logic and common sense.
I think one problem with many juries in this type of cases is that the lawyers, for the most part, prefer less educated people on the juries because they are supposed to be more subjective (or easier to manipulate). Also, most overeducated people will find some way to get out of jury duty. How many doctors do you know that were on juries recently?
Well, the quoted juror as well as other jurors on this case did. And they did have to sort out through a lot of complicated evidence. In some cases one thing that is required - and is not what most people posess - is logic and common sense.
I think one problem with many juries in this type of cases is that the lawyers, for the most part, prefer less educated people on the juries because they are supposed to be more subjective (or easier to manipulate). Also, most overeducated people will find some way to get out of jury duty. How many doctors do you know that were on juries recently?
# posted by : 4:50 PM
: 4:50 PM
A doctor would never be chosen for a jury. All we have to say is what we think of the legal profession and we'll be excused from the case. I think that I would probably be locked up if I were ever called. Didn't you watch the Simpsons? Homer kept dragging out the case, because he liked the donuts in the jury room. That's actually who decides on the liability of a physician.
# posted by : 6:18 PM
: 6:18 PM
What's it like to have such contempt for your fellow man?
You really really smart guys do realize that BOTH sides get to pick the jury, don't you? And that you only get a limited number of strikes without cause? And that judges don't just let you off juries because you've got a degree? Not that, as you two indicate, a degree is any indicia of intelligence.
Of course you knew all of that, because you're so much smarter than the rest of us.
You really really smart guys do realize that BOTH sides get to pick the jury, don't you? And that you only get a limited number of strikes without cause? And that judges don't just let you off juries because you've got a degree? Not that, as you two indicate, a degree is any indicia of intelligence.
Of course you knew all of that, because you're so much smarter than the rest of us.
# posted by : 9:38 PM
: 9:38 PM
You really think they would let a person on a jury when he stands up and states that the entire jury system in this country is copmpletely corrupted, that the malpractice system has ruined my life at no fault of my own, and that I'd like to stab the plaintiff's attorney in the eye with a pencil, like in "Natural Born Killers" They would lock me up.
# posted by : 7:19 AM
: 7:19 AM
When I had to defend myself against a malpractice claim, a very large jury pool was needed. There were 2 physicians in the jury pool - both were excused by the judge because they were physicians.
Post a Comment
# posted by : 7:21 AM
: 7:21 AM
