Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
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.
Medical Facts That Can And Cannot Be Proved By X-Ray: Historical Review And Present Possibilities, Samuel W. Donaldson
Medical Facts That Can And Cannot Be Proved By X-Ray: Historical Review And Present Possibilities, Samuel W. Donaldson
Michigan Law Review
As the science of the practice of medicine has progressed, new discoveries have brought out newer methods of diagnosis and treatment. With the discovery of x-rays by Professor Wilhelm Roentgen in 1895, an entirely new field was opened. The growth of this new field of medical radiology has been unusually rapid and of great importance. Radiology embraces the use of x-rays, radium, and other radioactive substances. Roentgenology is a division of radiology in that it is limited to the use of the Roentgen rays or x-rays, and medical roentgenology may be termed as the use of x-rays for the diagnosis …
Witness--Competency Of An Allopathic Expert In The Field Of Homeopathy--Opinion On Very Fact The Jury Must Determine, Victor H. Lane
Witness--Competency Of An Allopathic Expert In The Field Of Homeopathy--Opinion On Very Fact The Jury Must Determine, Victor H. Lane
Articles
Van Sickle v. Doolittle, (Ia., 1918), 169 N. W. 141, was an action for malpractice against a physician of the homeopathic school of medicine. Upon the trial, a physician of the allopathic school was called, and after testifying that he was unskilled in the science of homeopathy, was allowed to testify that the treatment shown to have been given to the patient by defendant, would produce no physiological effect, and that proper treatment required the giving of such medicines as would produce such effect. This was held error upon the ground that the defendant was called to treat the patient …