I still don’t know how juries and judges are able to sort out all the expert testimony during sometimes highly nuanced malpractice cases:
Doctors and lawyers are rarely cross-trained in each other’s professions, posing a problem when crucial decisions need to be made that are beyond one’s specialty. Fear of litigation may prompt physicians to order excessive precautionary tests and procedures, while judges with no medical training must weigh the testimonies of competing experts.
Related posts:
- Health courts redux
- If health reformers want to emulate Canada and Europe, can we copy their malpractice systems too?
- Health courts, and how they can save our health care system
- A GYN nurse misses Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever
- ACP: Embracing a culture of cost-effective health care
- Health courts help the plaintiffs?
- Health courts
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
Be carefull what you wish for! In most jurisdictions, juries are more forgiving of doctors than other physicians would ever be. Given the choice, I’d take my chances in front of a jury!
Where are all these health court “experts” going to come from, since you all are too busy as it is now?
“e carefull what you wish for! In most jurisdictions, juries are more forgiving of doctors than other physicians would ever be. Given the choice, I’d take my chances in front of a jury!”
That’s a load of shit! No jury of my peers would break down in tears when the Plaintiff’s sodomite explains how due to my malpractice the family was left motherless when in reality mom had smoked enough Crack to kill an army. Docs would understand frivolous, and wouldn’t fall for the “shake the tree” strategy where everyone is sued even remotely involved in the “victims” care.
Comments on this entry are closed.