What do you think - expert witness

[uksho]

I read the blog this morning . I understand I can comment there too . But I am posting here to see some comments from forum regulars

what is your opinion on expert work for plaintiff ? I have been approached for this in past , but haven’t
taken it , if they approach me for defense, likely I would take the offer .

what do you think ?

[VentAlarm]

I’m doing my first case. It’s for defense.

I’d probably be ok doing some plaintiff work, but would need to be the minority and only after having done defense work.

[Sundance]

Generally speaking if you’ve done more than a couple cases of plaintiff work than you’re scum in my eyes. The worse of the worse.

There should be a public database where every paid witness has every case openly reported and whether they testified for the plaintiff or defendant

[Cubicle]

I have done a little of defense review. No testifying. I would only consider plantiff work if it was gross negligence & I thought the doctor was a potential future hazard.

[MPMD]

Generally speaking if you’ve done more than a couple cases of plaintiff work than you’re scum in my eyes. The worse of the worse.

There should be a public database where every paid witness has every case openly reported and whether they testified for the plaintiff or defendant

you are entitled to your opinion but this has no bearing on what the OP is asking.

[CordMcNally]

Depends on the case. Gross negligence is gross negligence and a bad outcome is a bad outcome.

[Hatton]

If you have ever been sued and gone to trial you will have a life -long hatred of plaintiff attorneys.

[Random1]

There is a reason why plaintiff attorneys pick the same docs to certify cases. Being on the other side of it, I felt the wording from the "expert" was misleading and dishonest. As physicians, we all try to do our best and some times it donesn't go as planned. Everyone practicing long enough has had bad outcomes through no fault of their own. But to intentionally turn around a case and make it look like you are a totally dishonest physician in retrospect for money, is not much different than street walkers doing immoral acts for money.

[Panscan]

There is a reason why plaintiff attorneys pick the same docs to certify cases. Being on the other side of it, I felt the wording from the "expert" was misleading and dishonest. As physicians, we all try to do our best and some times it donesn't go as planned. Everyone practicing long enough has had bad outcomes through no fault of their own. But to intentionally turn around a case and make it look like you are a totally dishonest physician in retrospect for money, is not much different than street walkers doing immoral acts for money.

just a total conflict of interest from both sides basically. lots of people look for docs with loose morals who will slant everything to make a buck.

it is telling that people look at things different for plaintiff or defendant side. A system that actually worked and was impartial would have docs contacted about cases without knowing the claim or the clinical course, provided adequate information in chronological order and then they would describe what they would have done every step along the way. the court can then compare that to what was done and deem if reasonable or not. The current system sets up a ton of bias and is a laughably bad. Also ignores extremely basic concepts about retrospective bias amongst others. "yes sir I would have absolutely considered the person with toenail pain had an aortic dissection" after they were told the person ended up having an aortic dissection.

I don't consider it honorable to be in favor of defense only either as alluded to above. there are a lot of bad docs out there and being biased for docs is just the other side of the coin of being biased against docs.

[The White Coat Investor]

I read the blog this morning . I understand I can comment there too . But I am posting here to see some comments from forum regulars

what is your opinion on expert work for plaintiff ? I have been approached for this in past , but haven’t
taken it , if they approach me for defense, likely I would take the offer .

what do you think ?

Many would view it as unethical that you would provide a different opinion (or none at all) if you were hired by the defense vs the plaintiff. You're supposed to be an expert providing your true opinion and then letting the chips fall where they may. When all docs do that, many times one side of the case cannot even find an expert to prosecute or defend someone and the suit goes away or settles quickly. If a defense lawyer has 2 or 3 experts review a case and they all say it is indefensible, they're going to go settle.

[The White Coat Investor]

Generally speaking if you’ve done more than a couple cases of plaintiff work than you’re scum in my eyes. The worse of the worse.

There should be a public database where every paid witness has every case openly reported and whether they testified for the plaintiff or defendant

I agree with your second point but not your first one. The second point would probably fix the first issue.

[Hatton]

I agree with your second point but not your first one. The second point would probably fix the first issue.

Having personally experienced this process A reasonably competent defense attorney will discover the exact amount the witness has been paid and bring this to the jury's attention.

[Bdoc]

I have heard defense attorneys say, "even doctors will say anything for money."

I love the idea of a public database of people who constantly are representing the plaintiff. Once other doctors see that a particular physician keeps taking money to stretch the truth, their work environment will drastically change

[Lithium]

Having personally experienced this process A reasonably competent defense attorney will discover the exact amount the witness has been paid and bring this to the jury's attention.

That goes both ways, however. If you exclusively represent defendants, rest assured the plaintiff’s attorney will use this to impugn your credibility.

[Zaphod]

Basically gross negligence shouldnt make it to trial. I have done review work just recently for a firm and thought the care was terrible and there was just no way defensible, whether or not malpractice (which is very different than even what most docs think of it).

The percentage cases that are simply bad outcomes or small missed things, are just super super high. Plaintiff docs often just do as their told for a paycheck. You can actually report docs who testify in a case against you if you win, I would love to do this honestly. Seeing some of the behavior is just disheartening.