-
Calling Out Meaningless Expert Disclosures in Medical Malpractice Cases
The defendant doctor’s style of disclosure is almost always generic in nature and could be used in virtually any case of medical malpractice (i.e. all care provided by Dr. “X” was within the appropriate standard of care and was not a factor in the outcome). No meaningful expert disclosures are made revealing the grounds and →
-
Does an Oath Inoculate a Medical Witness from Being Biased in Favor of Other Healthcare Providers?
“Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” – John Henry Wigmore The existence of financial bias is a well established area of cross-examination when dealing with the credibility of witnesses and experts alike. Indiana law is clear that the income of an expert derives from his/her work as an expert →
-
Confirmation Bias: Foe of Justice and Truth
“Confirmation Bias” has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit. It is a mindset we all are susceptible to in the way we see the world. ‘Confirmation Bias’ is a psychological phenomenon that explains why people tend to seek out information that confirms their existing opinions and overlook or ignore information that refutes their →
-
Medical Malpractice: When Common Sense Trumps Expert Knowledge
Medical malpractice cases are difficult and expensive to litigate. However, sometimes experts are not required… Just common sense. Indiana has long embraced the “common knowledge exception” to requirements of expert testimony in certain matters. A physician’s allegedly negligent act or omission can be so obvious that expert testimony is unnecessary. Wright v. Carter, 622 N.E.2d →
/
Tumblr
/
The Barrister's Toolbox 