He’s preparing for a deposition, and writes about our lawsuit culture which unfairly penalizes good doctors in many cases.
Related posts:
- My take: Primary care, treating lawyers, bitter at doctors
- Physician malpractice deposition observations
- Dr. Charles on hiatus
- Charles Dickens Could Have Been A Physician
- Charles Foti’s medical experts
- Physicians versus administrators
- Cap trial lawyer pay
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 2 comments }
The lawsuit culture unfairly penalizes many good people (not just clinicians). Everyone here knows my position on this so I won’t beat the proverbial dead horse. Perhaps science courts for all PI litigation (not just medical malpractice) is what is needed. In the very least, the Federal Rules of Evidence 702 need to be reformed such that all “expert” testimony is evaluated under the same guidelines.
Criminallopath, is this a softening of your position? You mean that clinician are no longer guilty by association and can even be good people?
If so, then I think that I am ready to accept your premise. I agree that expert testimony is a scam. Experts can literally say anything and it can not be challenged. All you can do is offer your own expert and hope that the jury sees the truth. From my own bitter experience, the worst part of being sued is reading the plaintiff’s expert testimony and wondering what could possibly motivate someone to prostitute themselves like that. Their statements are so clearly coached and paid for by the attorneys as to be laughable.
In my specialty their is a review process for expert testimony. Several people have been expelled from the organization because of flagrantly biased or dishonest testimony. Of course, this does not help those that were harmed by their lies. It also does not prevent them from testifying in the future. They would have to admit it on cross-examination, though.
This process is not limited to malpractice cases. I once asked for an investigation because of outrageous testimony in a work comp case. Also, you don’t have to be a member of the organization to ask for a review of someone’s testimony.
It is a small effort for such a large problem, but at least its something. Some of us agree with your position. Its easier to discuss it if you don’t blame us for the problem or act like we are at least complicit and “deserving what we get” in the malpractice mess.
Comments on this entry are closed.