CONTENTS:
- Who me? How I became an expert witness
- Is “hot-tubbing” an answer?
- Frivolous lawsuits?
Who Me? How I Became an Expert Witness
The author of this bulletin retraces his journey as an expert medical witness
<< HERE >>
Expert testimony: On the hot seat, or in the hot tub?
Our current system of resolving allegations of malpractice against a physician requires that expert witnesses for each side present their opinions separately to the court through deposition or trial testimony. Australian courts are trying an innovation called “hot-tubbing.” In this format, experts from each side present their opinions simultaneously, with an opportunity for each expert, the attorneys, and the court to confront, refute or question the opinions of the other. Thus far this approach seems to reduce the adversarial atmosphere, speed the process of litigation, and moderate marginal or overly polarized opinions of experts. Based on my own experience, this physician believes that such an approach would result in a reasonable outcome for both plaintiff and defendant.
Frivolous Lawsuits? Apparently Not
There is a strong correlation between the merits of an underlying claim of medical negligence and the amount paid to settle the claim. Three interesting articles on this subject published in 2007 are summarized and linked below.
- Philip Peters published his findings on the subject in the Iowa Law Review. You can read the abstract of this article on the Social Sciences Research Network website << HERE >> and download the entire article by clicking on the download icon in the upper left corner of the page.
- Dr. David Studdert from the Harvard School of Public Health produced an excellent review of 1452 closed claims from 5 different insurers, published in NEJM. I found one of the most interesting features of this article to be that 10% of claims were closed with payment when there was no documented error, and 16% of claims were closed with no payment when there was a documented error.