Saturday, April 29, 200611
Legal and medical evidence
There's a good discussion going on at DB's discussing how lawyers and physicians define what acceptable evidence is:
We who favor special health courts believe that this story provides a classic example of poor definitions of evidence. We expect the same definition of evidence for our medical practice and any judgment of malpractice. Having a son in law school, I understand (because he has explained this clearly) that the legal definitions of acceptable evidence are very different from the medical definitions.
Comments
-
j. hubbard, MD
I participated in DB's discussion and would like to add a comment here.
-
j. hubbard, MD
for appellant read appellate.
-
Anonymous
I wonder how much the "expert" plaintiff witness got paid for his testimony.
-
Anonymous
My initial estimate is that you are jealous that your credentials aren't sufficient to be an expert witness.
-
Anonymous
Credentials????
-
Anonymous
And yet the defense didn't even challenge the credentials of the plaintiff's witnesses! And you, who hasn't even seen their CVs, are qualified to disparage them.
-
Greedy Trial Lawyer
Special Note to Mr. Distinguished ER Doc: I am sure your own whores were board-certified and very distinguished ER doctors who, under the questioning of your crack defense attorneys, fully testified that you far exceeded the standards even in the world's finest ER rooms. I am hoping that the jury determined the Plaintiff's whore was telling the TRUTH.
-
Anonymous
" am hoping that the jury determined the Plaintiff's whore was telling the TRUTH."
-
Anirban
"I am hoping that the jury determined the Plaintiff's whore was telling the TRUTH."
-
Anonymous
" A perfect example of how "well" our present jury system works in which you pick the biggest MORONS available. Good job counsler."
-
Anonymous
GTL,
Post a Comment »In this case a trial court judge rendered an opinion "as a matter of law" that the expert testimony, a single case report from the journal Lancet, was insufficient and as such there was no basis for the plaintiff's allegation of medical malpractice.
The appellate court overturned that ruling.
DB apparently surmised that the appellant court came to the conclusion that a single case report is a basis for a malpractice action. Upon reading the actual published court ruling, not the news report, I disagree.
What the appellant court essentially said was that since the plaintiff did have a basis for her allegation of malpractice, the published case report, and other arguments, she deserves her day in court.
It's important for persons not versed in trial procedure to realize that a judgement as a matter of law deprives one of a jury trial. If the judgement is in your favor then, of course, you're happy. But if it's against you then you did not get your full day in court.
The appellant court did not say that single case reports are a full basis for expert testimony equivalent to all others. That court, in overturning the trial court judge's ruling is merely saying that there is SOME basis for the plaintiff's argument and as such she deserves her day in court.
I actuall predict, based upon my reading of the appellant court's ruling, that the defendant physician will prevail in a full jury trial.
1:42 PM
the appellate was the court, the appellant was the physician.
:)
1:53 PM
My initial estimate is that he makes SUBSTANTIALLY more money testifying in court rather than doing his real job.
6:40 PM
9:02 PM
I am a board certified ER doctor with many distinguished awards. A physician who completed one year of a pediatric residency for her training and who had not practiced in EM in over 15 years testified against me.
It doesn't take any "credentials" to be an "expert" witness, just some deperation and willingness to whore oneself.
9:40 PM
Even if you did have the credentials, your arrogance would disqualify you as an effective witness. Not that you would ever stoop to testifying for a plaintiff, no matter how clear the malpractice. You're too good for that! You'd just rather bitch about how anyone who would is a whore.
9:46 PM
6:51 AM
Yeah right just like the jury in south texas that just awarded 32 million (cut down to almost 8 million) to a family of a 71 yo overweight, hypertensive, coronary artery disease patient (s/p CABG) who was STILL SMOKING at the time of his MI because he took vioxx for 7-30 days. A perfect example of how "well" our present jury system works in which you pick the biggest MORONS available. Good job counsler.
10:05 AM
Your favourite wet dream never materialize 80% of the times and don't you tell me that you are for TRUTH .Had it been you won't be in business.
10:27 AM
Irony. Ain't it a bitch?
1:46 PM
No, the GTL in my case got his fool ass kicked. Two years on the case and he got nothing. Guess he will just have to keep trying for that winning lotto ticket.
9:41 AM