Saturday, June 6, 2009


A doc blogs about his medmal case, already concluded.

1) Experts are subject to outcome bias, as is everyone else, including juries and judges. The same procedures will be rated as within standard of care if the outcome is good in a case presentation, and outside the standard if the outcome is bad with exactly the same steps. Outcome bias is a bias, as racism is. It violates the procedural due process of civil defendants to a fair trial, a right established by the Supreme Court. No one has ever used this tactic in a trial or in an appeal. The bias is so well proven that any defense lawyer not asserting it took place should be terrorized by the legal malpractice expert employed as personal lawyer by the defendant.

2) I strongly urge the defendant to have his personal lawyer bully his insurance hack loser traitor lawyer force the opposing expert to produce his own charts on similar cases as the one in the lawsuit. These charts should have been within a year of the injury to the patient, since the standard of care has a short half life. There should be many. If the expert cannot produce his own charts, move for a mistrial, and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and plaintiff expert. The lying expert is not really an expert if he has not done the same work as the defendant. That move will likely exclude all academic assholes. They do not see patients, being scholars, and are totally junior to the defendant, including in IQ.

3) The defendant himself should parse every word uttered by the plaintiff expert. That includes all publication, all reports, and all charts. If a single utterance contradicts any statement in the report, in the sworn deposition, in the sworn testimony, have the personal lawyer terrorize the insurance hack loser into moving for the judge to charge the expert with perjury, and refer the expert to the District Attorney for criminal charges, criminal contempt, and a mistrial, again with all costs to the personal assets of the lying expert. To deter.

Why does one need a personal lawyer to terrorize the vile insurance hack loser? Because the traitor does not want to permanently damage the plaintiff side. This vile traitor owes his job to the lying plaintiff not to the defendant. He will never willingly hurt the other side, because the plaintiff side is delicate, and runs at the first sign of painful resistance. The case costs them $50K to bring. If they see losing that amount, and a crushing resistance, they run away, and never come back.

The innocent defendant has a moral duty to clinical care to never settle, and to actively seek the personal destruction of the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and the plaintiff expert. If they commit suicide so much better the remedy, that one being permanent. It would be well deserved. Every penny they consume comes from the care of other patients, to maintain their Roman Orgy lifestyles.

4) If opposing experts testify in good faith, then a scientific controversy exists. It cannot get resolved by rhetoric, and jury preference. It may only be resolved by additional scientific evidence from validated research. The court should automatically dismiss the case. So only cases that are within the knowledge of the jury, or have expert support for only one side are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the court. Any case allowing a debate between opposing experts violates the procedural due process right of the civil defendant to a fair hearing.

We need some new approaches to the plaintiff experts. There is no recourse against them outside the trial. The defendant is an expert himself, and should be used to the maximum in the case. One should refer unprofessional conduct to the licensing board of each state in which he is licensed. Send in one complaint a week to a separate board. Each generates an investigation. Do the same with complaints to professional societies, and to the employer. Let the expert live with uncertainty for years if necessary. Generate legal fees if any complaint sticks.

Experts have absolute immunity for their opinions. This is based on the First Amendment, on a Supreme Court decision, and on universally accepted public policy. To encourage service to the court. It applies to the defense expert, and to the defendant when testifying. I think it is fair.

There is a lot of recourse within the trial, with the judge. This is never used, because it would end the medmal business. So the defense attorney must be forced. He may resign before allowing these.

1) Demand charts of the plaintiff experts for similar patients. If there are no recent charts, as in the past two years, seek disqualification of the expert. He is not an expert, then. Reading from a book does not make anyone an expert.

2) The defendant must read every word uttered by the plaintiff expert anywhere. If any asserted fact is not true, the witness is guilty of perjury or criminal contempt of court. So, double check all experience. Say, he testifies he spent 2 years in a fellowship, but left after one. That is a false fact, not opinion. Say, he testifies he read a certain document, but obviously knows nothing about it. That is a false fact. If an opinion contradicts an opinion in testimony or report, let the defense lawyer know to impeach the plaintiff expert. “Doctor, in which passage were you lying?”

3) I would like to see total e-discovery of all plaintiff parties, including the plaintiff, the plaintiff lawyer, and all plaintiff experts. Get all personal computers, get all social networking names and aliases, seeking improper motives in the lawyers, and bias in the plaintiff and in the plaintiff expert.

4) Have the defense expert go through the plaintiff expert report. And use this checklist of biases to characterized every conclusion.

Some defense attorney will have the courage to call for a mistrial because these biases violate the procedural due process rights found for the civil defendant. Most medmal cases are weak and represent an expression of outcome bias. The latter also explains the disparities in insurance rates between specialties. Neurosurgeons do not make more mistakes than dermatologists. Their bad outcome generates more revenge motivation than those of dermatologists. White Coat correctly identified the scapegoating motive of the claim. It is unlawful. The defense attorney must ask for a mistrial and all costs to the personal assets of the plaintiff lawyer. Will never happen unless the defense attorney is threatened with personal destruction by another lawyer.


Anonymous said...

Do you realize that the word "deter" comes from the French word for "terror" which is derived from the word for "terrier". You know, one of those little ankle biting dogs that yip too much.

Yeah, all this ankle biting deters. Gotcha.

Supremacy Claus said...

What are you trying to say?