Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Marc D. Ginsberg
The source of the applicable standard of care in a specific medical negligence claim is multifaceted. The testifying expert witness, when explaining the applicable standard of care, “would draw upon his own education and practical frame of reference as well as upon relevant medical thinking, as manifested by literature, educational resources and information available to practitioners, and experiences of similarly situated members of the profession.” Accordingly, in typical medical negligence litigation, the plaintiff’s expert witness testifying regarding the existence of and the defendant-physician’s deviation from the standard of care would be a physician. Why, then, have courts permitted non-physicians to …
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Non-Physician Vs. Physician: Cross-Disciplinary Expert Testimony In Medical Negligence Litigation, Marc D. Ginsberg
Georgia State University Law Review
The source of the applicable standard of care in a specific medical negligence claim is multifaceted. The testifying expert witness, when explaining the applicable standard of care, “would draw upon his own education and practical frame of reference as well as upon relevant medical thinking, as manifested by literature, educational resources and information available to practitioners, and experiences of similarly situated members of the profession.” Accordingly, in typical medical negligence litigation, the plaintiff’s expert witness testifying regarding the existence of and the defendant-physician’s deviation from the standard of care would be a physician. Why, then, have courts permitted non-physicians to …
Misapplication Of The Attorney Malpractice Paradigm To Litigation Services: "Suit Within A Suit" Shortcomings Compel Witness Immunity For Experts, Adam J. Myers Iii
Misapplication Of The Attorney Malpractice Paradigm To Litigation Services: "Suit Within A Suit" Shortcomings Compel Witness Immunity For Experts, Adam J. Myers Iii
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.
Empirical Evidence And Malpractice Litigation, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Empirical Evidence And Malpractice Litigation, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Faculty Publications
Critics of medical malpractice litigation believe that expert testimony is often anecdotal and biased. To remedy this problem, several have recently suggested that attorneys should provide and courts should seek reliable empirical evidence of actual clinical norms. Their suggestion should be welcomed. If our expectations are realistic and the design pitfalls are avoided, greater use of use of empirical research will improve the fairness of malpractice adjudication. At least in theory, it could be useful in both the "easy" cases (where it reveals that a consensus standard of care exists) and also some of the harder cases (where clinical practices …