Maryland Personal Injury Lawyer Help Center Additions
I have been working this week to continue to make additions to the Personal Injury Attorney Help Center on the Miller & Zois website. Today I added a transcript of a trial cross examination of Defendant's medical doctor for a case I am trying in Prince George's County next month. I have redacted the name of the doctor primarily because I like the guy personally. The transcript reads very well for Plaintiff. The doctor comes off like a hired gun who is a professional expert in the most extreme sense of the word. He claims to treat patients outside of the legal context as a contractor for another doctor but then said that he would not be surprised if that same doctor did not know he was doing non-legal related work. He is treating patients for another doctor yet he is not surprised that this same doctor would not know he was treating these patients? It makes no sense.
If you read the transcript, you will also be amazed at the extremes this doctor will go to discount the prospect of evidence that does not support his claim. Incredibly, he says if anything happened and it is not in the medical records, it did not happen. Accordingly, you cannot construct a hypothetical that would be relevant to his opinion. It is really incredible testimony.
I also added a few other motions and a deposition of a defendant doctor in a medical malpractice case that one of our lawyer, Rod Gaston, took last month. Tomorrow, I'm going to blog on the post trial issues I just briefed in a case Rod tried last month that I think are very interesting.
Comments
It certainly is a weakness in defendant's case that the defendant's expert simply reviewed medical records and did not examine the patient. Why carriers try to defend on the cheap, rather than settle, is a mystery to me.
I'm assuming that there's some claim for permanency as a result of the fracture -- whatever its cause : ). Seems to me that such a claim is a perfectly good reason to actually lay hands on the patient. And yes, the doctor sure sounds like litigation for defendants is his bread and butter. But we don't know who Plaintiff's treating physician is -- perhaps the two docs are evenly matched in the litigation category.
Your point that defendant's doctor asserts that if it's not in the records, it didn't happen may prove too much. Instead, I think it puts the focus of the subequent injury claim squarely on the Plaintiff's credibilty. On one hand, not every complaint shows up in a medical record. On the other hand, sometimes they do -- especially if the injury is the subject of litigation. I'd say the Plaintiff's testimony is going to make the difference on whether a jury believes that she had these knee and walking problems.
I noticed that the suit is in PG County, so maybe plaintiff's credibility isn't so important after all -- in which case your client will be in a happy place soon enough.
Posted by: Tony | July 28, 2006 4:32 PM