Using the layman juror to the plaintiff lawyer’s advantage

December 5, 2007

Which is why health courts are needed:

Technical litigation has proven to be a major challenge for the jury system, and malpractice cases are no exception. Matters that are too difficult for expert physicians to decide, or at least reach a consensus on, are referred to a panel of 12 laymen for final decisions.

Research indicates that lesser-educated members of society are more likely to serve as jurors, making it probable that a malpractice case will be tried before individuals with far less education than the defendants. Plaintiff’s lawyers are acutely aware of these realities and adopt modern psychological profiling techniques to select jurors they believe are predisposed to an outcome in their favor, such as a megaverdict.

KevinMD.com on Facebook

Follow on Twitter Subscribe

Tagged as: malpractice

{ 4 comments }

1 Anonymous December 5, 2007 at 4:42 pm: Wonder how these slobbering morons manage to find for the doctor at a ratio of 3-1.

You guys do realize that the plaintiffs don’t get unlimited strikes and there is a very well funded defense team there, don’t you?

“Research indicates” and “makes it probable”? Wonder if the survey was as thorough as this one:

http://gruntdoc.com/2007/12/acep-press-release-on-ct-scan-and-cancer-study.html

Of course, Kevin doesn’t ask those questions when the answers are what he wants to hear.
2 Alla December 6, 2007 at 10:51 am: Wonder how these slobbering morons manage to find for the doctor at a ratio of 3-1.

Pretty meaningless statement unless you know for sure what is the ratio of cases that actually have merit to those that don’t. You keep citing it as if it shows something, but unless you know what the actual ratio should’ve been had the juries being 100% right it is totally meaningless.

If only 10% of cases have merit, than the ratio of 3-1 means juries err a lot in favor of plaintiff. If 100% of cases have merit than juries err a lot in favor of doctors. Unless you can have some totally impartial expert review each of these cases and compare their decision with those of juries you cannot really deduce anything at all from this statistics.

Learn some probability and statistics shall you.
3 J December 6, 2007 at 11:28 am: Saying that a 3-1 win/loss ratio indicates juries favor doctors is not accurate. It means that doctors don’t lose 75% of the time, it has no bearing on validity of case. Perhaps 95% of doctors should not lose, but do because of layman juries (or for whatever reason).
4 Anonymous December 9, 2007 at 1:15 pm: How ironic that physicians chastise others for not knowing statistics. There is literally NO statistical evidence that plaintiff’s lawyers “use the layman juror” to their advantage, but it’s an article of faith with you.