Medical pariahs

We have had this problem for sometime, having known of this peripatetic bunch of physicians hopping from state to state testifying, for fat fees, for plaintiffs’ lawyers.
Sometimes they tread on grounds where they have no expertise, spouting off testimony meant to bamboozle more an unknowing jury than to arrive at the truth. And we even used to have a name for them: medical prostitutes.

The problem has become so pervasive it’s time to do what is right. Plaintiffs’ lawyers may cry all they want, but there ought to be standards for those who are called to testify, whether on the plaintiffs’ or defendants’ side. Disciplining them, either by state boards or specialty societies,is one of the best ways to clean up the mess.

I see two problems that compound the situation: (l) the extravagant fees, specially from plaintiffs’ lawyers, that these physicians can command;(2)and lay juries with little understanding of medical issues, particularly if complex, making a mockery of
a process where truth becomes waylaid.

I’m glad the AMA is strongly supporting measures taken by many states to clean up what has become a cottage industry for some physicians. By establishing strict standards, backed up by disciplinary powers, we ought to re-establish integrity in a process where testimony can be bought for a price. I see no reason why trial lawyers should not welcome this change.

I couldn’t agree more with all of the above opinions. Having unfortuntely been through this process myself and also winning the case, not only directly, but also through a very lengthy appeals process by the plaintiffs, one cannot estimate the importance of the expert witness.

In my own case, as a radiologist, the case was about alleged negligence over misinterpretation of a mammogram. Not unusual. Interestingly, the woman was a lawyer’s wife, making the case all that more difficult because of the bias given by everyone in the courtroom, from the judge to the court stenographer in favor of them. The point that I wish to make is that the entire case hinged on the testimony of the expert witness. The mammograms under consideration were not even allowed into evidence. The entire case hinges on whose experts the jury wants to believe or basically which side does a better side of discrediting the others’ witnesses. Sometimes, this discrediting is nothing more than courtroom grandstanding by the opposing attorneys, who yell and scream at your witnesses and basically call them idiots and morons, while they verbally twist and misconsture their testimony. This is an incredible and eye-opening experience to watch, if one is impartial. As a direct participant, it is absolutely horrifying.

As my appeals process has just been completed, and the statute of limitations on further appeals to the state supreme court has expired, I am now in the process of crafting a letter of official complaint against my plaintiff’s expert witness. The American College of Radiology just began an official inquiry process to allow this and apparently they’re busier than they ever thought they would be.

DD

I am a plaintiff attorney. I pride myself on the fact that I pursue only meritorious cases. However, finding out which cases have merit is not easy. I turn away 8 of ten clients before obtaining all the records. But some cases have to be investigated in detail to fairly evaluate. The medical records have to be obtained, analyzed by experts, and often depositions of witnesses have to be taken before the “facts” can be sorted out. The difficulty in finding “honest” experts is mountainous. The deadline for filing the claim often makes it necessary to file befoer the evaluation process is over. And I have seen medical “whores” on the defense side, too. A fair evaluation process would be welcomed on both sides of the bar. But an evaluation panel should consist of not just physicians. Maybe three physicians, a lawyer and a layperson, all having equal voting power, would be a fair pre-suit evaluation team.