Wednesday, December 05, 20074
Using the layman juror to the plaintiff lawyer's advantage
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.
Comments
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.
4:42 PM
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.
10:51 AM
11:28 AM
1:15 PM
Post a Comment