So then I am correct, you have no idea what you’re talking about. So stop pontificating about how hard or not hard it is.

Care to back up your John Edwards claim? Or did you just hear it from a friend somewhere?

No wonder you don’t like courts – your “evidence” for your opinions wouldn’t take you very far.

Criminallopath
As a “client advocate” in a CP case John Edwards interviwed 41 obstetricians and was refused and found the 42nd scum to testify in a bogus causation theory ,which has been refuted a no. of times .I bet if you interviewed 42 scientists, you could find one willing to testify he had been probed by aliens as long as it brought him $600 an hour.The worst part of the story is that most CP cases are not even caused by oxygen deprivation during delivery . If a person Is that morally wretched ( if morality means any thing to lawyers) to win millions at any cost , whatever you try ,they will get someone , . Edwards and his cabal do all these ‘hard work’
All the time . your contention that being just advocates expunge them off all truth and responsibility ,doesn’t hold water. After all the lawyer chooses to be the advocate/pimp of some Dirtbag/PI litigant and there should be no reason he can’t be sued.

The attornies are advocates for their clients. The clinicians, perhaps are as well for their litigant/dirtbag PI/patients. Attornies, however, are not the ones parrotting their clients’ claims in the guise of “expert testimony.” The clinician as a lie detector that always finds the litigant to be truthful as long as someone else is getting sued (god forbid the same truthful litigant sue the clinician for malpractice) is purely in the court of junk science clinical causaton testimony.

It is no surprise that nobody really wants to touch this one. The Med Mal attornies are really no different than the run of the mill PI attorneys. The clinicians don’t want to touch this because they are happy to whore themsevles out to these attornies on the PI cases. When both the clinicians and the PI attornies can screw over some innocent third party (e.g. defendant on a low-speed rear-end impact soft fraud case) there doesn’t exist a reason for either party to complain. The problem, however, is even deeper and deals with the junk science method for “clinical cause assessment.” As a hypothetical example, let us consider the dirtbag litigant that shows up in an ER with complaints of neck and back pain and claims that it was due to a rear-end auto accident. You run your battery of orthopaedic/ neurological tests – all of which are subjective and depend entirely on either the compliance (ROM testing for example) or veracity of the litigant. Plain film radiographs with “positive findings” such as loss of cervical/lumbar lordosis can be due just as easily to malpositioning error as they can be secondary to muscle spasm. There are no tests for MVA caused strain/sprain injuries (i.e. no hallmark diagnostic indicator). Yet, how often do ER (and other) clinicians happily go along with the biased litigant’s “history” of MVA and determine that the diagnostic impression was one of post-traumatic or MVA caused strain/sprain injury? Even forgoeing the whole subjective nature of the diangosis, the preceding “MVA” or “post-traumatic” is purely parrotting the patient. This is the type of junk science, however, that gets passed off as “causation” testimony on a daily basis to orders of magnitude greater extent than the junk science (following the same paradigm) medical malpractice “causation” testimony.

“This form of scum is much different then the scumbag lawyers who have turned medicine into a giant “rule out” fishing expedition, where patients get 2 colonoscopies a year “just in case”.”

Actually it is the same. The whore that sleeps with the john is really no better off in this scenario.

“These physician crooks are no better then the plaintiff attorneys who pray every night a baby is born with CF so they can make a million. Both are simply scum of the earth.”

Think about that the next time you diagnose “post-traumatic” or MVA caused injury when some dirtbag litigant shows up in the ER whining about their subjective “MVA caused” injury. By parrotting their history as the “cause” you are only helping to feed the litigation beast. It is about time that clinicians finally admit that unless there exists a hallmark diagnostic indicator or until the history itself is actually evaluated in an unbiased manner, that a substantive amount of “clinical causation” is purely speculative. It shouldn’t be a surprise that litigants will fabricate, exxagerate or psychosocially claim all sorts of BS injuries to scam money from third parties that aren’t clinicians.

“Most of us are here to complain that we can no longer practice medicine because of the Lawyer Nazis chasing us. I have enough problems because of them, I want to leave medicine because of it, I don’t really care about these docs who do insurance fraud, it’s another topic.”

I would about as much expect a clinician to complain about junk science PI insurance fraud as I would a plaintiff’s med mal attorney to complain about junk science med mal cases. Why complain about the part of the legal system that is providing handsome profit to each respective party? The underlying paradigm for both types of cases is the same. If the rules of evidence, particularly those based on Daubert, were applied in an unbiased manner for clinical testimony – both types of cases would be thrown out.

You probably didn’t know that, which would be in keeping with the fact that you really know next to nothing about what you’re talking about here. But at least you’re consistent.

CJD There are not many cases in the court-room , they are settled ,and if it is only there ‘hard-working’ attorneys are found then 80% of the time they must have been lazy. Now it should be ‘pretty clear’ for → you.

No, they aren’t. Although how does one judge which banker is “bottom of the barrel”? If it’s based on income brought to the firm, and you’re talking about Wall Street, which you have to be because Merrill Lynch doesn’t have retail banks, the bottom of the barrel will not last long there.

” I never heard of ABA going after any lawyers license either . Professional organizations never do”

Of course you don’t. The ABA is a lobbying organization,like the AMA – they don’t have that power. The state bars do that, and if you pick up any state bar magazine any month, you’ll see a list of the people sanctioned, reprimanded, suspended, and revoked.

“CJD . Do you have statistics about rest of the professions all round the world. I hope it applies to them also including lawyers.”

I did, but all I can find now are the US ones. I’ll look.

As for your analysis of how hard attorneys work, particularly med mal attorneys, it’s pretty clear that you’ve never even been in a courtroom, so you probably aren’t the best source of knowledge on that front.

So what’s keeping you from quitting medicine?