Comments on: The impotent malpractice screening panel

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sun, 28 Oct 2007 18:43:00 +0000

Maybe the jury was wrong.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:33:00 +0000

Maybe the screening panel was wrong.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 18:01:00 +0000

I wonder if the malpractice screening panel finding is admissible in court? As in, the jury voted as they did, despite knowing the screening panel finding.

By: DCS

DCS — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 23:40:00 +0000

The inability of fetal monitoring and rapid caesarian sections to make a dent in the incidence of CP is well established. Of course medmal attorney and John Edwards know this well, but choose to ignore the facts in order to cash in on well meaning but dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks juries. I’m glad I stopped doing OB.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:10:00 +0000

The malpractice panel is mentioned fouth paragraph down in the article by my count (hard to tell sometimes with the formatting).

The screening panel is mandatory in Maine med-mal suits, at least according to this source.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/ph/rpt/2003-R-0871.htm

The rules for direct and cross-examination of witnesses are described.

By: MedMal Atty

MedMal Atty — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 14:40:00 +0000

First, your link doesn’t say anything about a malpractice panel.

Second, (assuming you know there was a panel from an unrelated source) panels don’t see witnesses present testimony and get cross-examined, and thus are unable to resolve disputes of fact.