![]() ![]() Some attorneys may not think that they need to ask such questions since the expert should be able to put forth all of their opinions, and many experts will view the deposition as simply answering the defense attorney’s questions and not the opportunity to put forth their full opinions.Īlso, plaintiffs’ experts should be encouraged to give full and complete answers to all questions, especially the basis for their opinions. Most defense attorneys will use some combination of the two approaches, but if the full extent of the plaintiff’s experts’ opinion on negligence and causation, and the basis for such opinions, are not clear by the end of the defense examination, the expert must be asked those questions by the plaintiff’s attorney. Otherwise, at trial the defense at trial will claim that the expert’s testimony at trial is beyond the opinions stated in deposition. An expert who is fully prepared to state their opinion on negligent care and/or causation and who is not actually asked for their opinions needs to be asked specifically about such opinions and their basis by the plaintiff attorney. There are two different styles for defense attorneys taking the deposition of a plaintiff’s liability expert - one is to ask for the expert’s opinions and the basis for each such opinion and the other is to ask the expert to agree with general statements about care and/or causation. ![]() ![]() When the actual data referenced in many articles in the medical literature is carefully reviewed such data can show a 51 percent or even greater relationship between the factor or treatment studied and the harmful outcome, even though such data is not sufficient to be considered statistically significant in proving a causal relationship.ģ. Most research studies refer to a confidence level of at least 95 percent relationship between the factor under study and the outcome.Īnything less than that is not sufficient for most peer-reviewed scientific literature, but reasonable medical probability implies a 50.1 percent relation between the negligent care and the outcome. Unlike the concept of medical certainty required for evidence of causation in medical research, causation in medical malpractice cases requires reasonable medical probability. Some medical experts, especially the more academic experts or those who do not have much experience doing medical-legal work may be confused by the standard required for causation. Causation need not be proven to a medical certainty ![]() Such a search will often provide leads for experts in the field who have published some of the relevant literature.Ģ. Since there is so much medical literature available directly on the Internet, any attorney handling medical-malpractice cases would do well to conduct their own search for the literature (including PubMed). But unless the opinion has a sufficient medical basis, the expert may not be able to sufficiently substantiate their opinion on cross-examination at trial.Īny expert who offers an opinion in a medical-malpractice case should be able to provide the relevant medical literature that supports both the negligence and causation aspects of their opinion. Even an expert who opines that there would have been a different outcome “to a reasonable degree of medical probability” may not understand that such an opinion must have a supportable basis within the scope of the medical literature or “evidence based practice.” An expert may be strong on negligence and even willing to sign a declaration sufficient to get past a motion for summary judgment and then testify at deposition. Another expert may be willing to say that the care provided was below the standard of care and that appropriate care might have led to a different outcome, thinking that is a sufficient liability opinion. Some medical experts will review the records and depositions in a case and conclude that there was negligent care, but not be able to give an opinion that in the absence of such negligent care the outcome would be any different. An objective review as to the reason for such result that seemingly vindicates the defendant doctor and/or hospital often reveals the inability of the plaintiff’s experts to convince the jury on liability. Unfortunately, many medical-malpractice cases that proceed through trial result in a defense verdict by a jury, even where there may be significant economic damages and reasonably good facts on negligence. For all injury cases, further experts are required to prove any future damages. The one essential requirement to the prosecution of any medical-malpractice case is the need for expert testimony to establish liability. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |