Comments on: Using the layman juror to the plaintiff lawyer’s advantage http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/using-layman-juror-to-plaintiff-lawyers.html medical blog Fri, 12 Mar 2010 19:44:31 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/using-layman-juror-to-plaintiff-lawyers.html/comment-page-1#comment-82088 Anonymous Sun, 09 Dec 2007 18:15:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/12/using-the-layman-juror-to-the-plaintiff-lawyers-advantage.html#comment-82088 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. 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.

]]> By: J http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/using-layman-juror-to-plaintiff-lawyers.html/comment-page-1#comment-82040 J Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:28:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/12/using-the-layman-juror-to-the-plaintiff-lawyers-advantage.html#comment-82040 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). 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).

]]> By: Alla http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/using-layman-juror-to-plaintiff-lawyers.html/comment-page-1#comment-82039 Alla Thu, 06 Dec 2007 15:51:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/12/using-the-layman-juror-to-the-plaintiff-lawyers-advantage.html#comment-82039 <i>Wonder how these slobbering morons manage to find for the doctor at a ratio of 3-1.<br/></i><br/>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.<br/><br/>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. <br/><br/>Learn some probability and statistics shall you. 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.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2007/12/using-layman-juror-to-plaintiff-lawyers.html/comment-page-1#comment-82030 Anonymous Wed, 05 Dec 2007 21:42:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2007/12/using-the-layman-juror-to-the-plaintiff-lawyers-advantage.html#comment-82030 Wonder how these slobbering morons manage to find for the doctor at a ratio of 3-1.<br/><br/>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?<br/><br/>"Research indicates" and "makes it probable"? Wonder if the survey was as thorough as this one:<br/><br/>http://gruntdoc.com/2007/12/acep-press-release-on-ct-scan-and-cancer-study.html<br/><br/>Of course, Kevin doesn't ask those questions when the answers are what he wants to hear. 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.

]]>