More evidence to clean up the expert witness system:
“The complaint raises another example of greed, fraud, in lawsuits,” he said. “Here in West Virginia a radiologist was paid nearly $10 million by personal injury lawyers to allegedly doctor X-rays of potential asbestos victims.”Harron’s reputation earned him a mock Academy Award for “science fiction” in March from Cohen’s non-profit group.
“Junk lawsuits and bad actors like Ray Harron who are willing to trade the truth for money are only hurting those who are truly sick and deserving of compensation,” Cohen said at the time. “Juries must have accurate information from reliable experts if justice is to be served.”
Related posts:
- Expert witness with a conscience
- Expert witness corruption
- An expert witness goes down in flames
- Fired for being an expert witness
- An expert witness prices himself out of a trial
- Expert witness pleads guilty
- Expert witnesses in Florida
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
As a conscientious medical malpractice attorney (formerly for defense firms, now my own practice for Plaintiffs) I am greatly offended by corrupt “experts” who manufacture opinions without regard for truth.
However, this is a story of “man bites dog” i.e. a newsworthy event because it is sensational, and atypical. Many studies (and my own experience) support that MOST medical malpractice suits brought have significant merit at least in terms of there having been actual malpractice. Those suits that are brought, and fail, most often do so because a plaintiff who proves malpractice is nonetheless unable to prove (to satisfaction of a jury, per some fairly confusing “jury instructions”) that this was also a “proximate cause” or “substantial factor” in producing a defined injury. Of course, no case should be brought without both malpractice and causation of injury, but a plaintiff has the burden of proof on both issues, and the sheer medical complexity of the evidence makes proof of causation inherently difficult in many cases, even where unbiased experts would agree that there was some malpractice producing harm.
However, a verdict against plaintiff on either “no malpractice” or “no proof of causation” is counted as a “defense verdict” by the malpractice insurers, who tout the statistic that a majority of suits to verdict for “for the defense” as evidence that most suits are meritless.
I would invite you to define what a “non junk” malpractice suit is, and a “good expert.” I would then be happy to engage in discussion of how our files stack up against your definition, and we can then see if you would acknowledge the proper, important role of meritorious civil suits.
Comments on this entry are closed.