Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Expert witnesses have become a necessity in virtually all litigation, from medical malpractice to products liability to family law cases. Technical understanding of disputes is required for juror determination in this increasingly technical world. Damages need to be calculated using expert data; professional standards and their application to any medical malpractice action require expert opinion. But what happens when the side hiring the expert loses, or the independent evaluation doesn't come up with the hoped-for answer? Increasingly, what happens is the disappointed party sues the expert. In some cases, the experts have immunity to lawsuit, but in an increasing number of instances, they simply do not.
Features
Last month, we discussed tactical considerations when challenging expert witnesses' qualifications. This month, we focus on the optimal time to conduct <i>voir dire</i>.
Features
National news of interest to you and your practice.
Features
A 70-year-old man was admitted to the hospital for a bowel resection. Following surgery, the patient's condition worsened considerably; He spent months in the ICU on a ventilator, was fed through a gastrostomy tube, and his mental status waned. After some time, it was suspected that his deteriorating condition might be related to sepsis from a bowel perforation. Subsequent surgery confirmed this diagnosis. Attempts to repair the perforation failed, and, ultimately the patient died. Medicare paid the patient's medical bills, which exceeded $500,000. The patient's family commenced a lawsuit, alleging that the surgeon's negligence caused the bowel perforation. During the litigation, the Medicare Trust Fund sent a correspondence to the patient's estate, asserting a claim of reimbursement for the benefits Medicare paid from any recovery that the estate might obtain.
A roundup of news items that may affect your practice.
<i>Voir dire</i>, or a preliminary cross-examination that takes place prior to the direct examination of an opposing expert's qualifications, is a useful, often under-appreciated, tool to preclude, limit, or discredit expert testimony. We addresses only evidentiary <i>voir dire</i> in this article, not <i>Daubert/Frye</i> hearings regarding the admissibility of scientific evidence.
Features
Recent rulings of importance to your practice.
All about <i>Daubert's</i> Ghost...complete with Web sites. Also, a look at ECRI (formerly the Emergency Care Research Institute) is a nonprofit health services research agency. Its mission is to improve the safety, quality, and cost-effectiveness of health care. It is widely recognized as one of the world's leading independent organizations committed to advancing the quality of healthcare. ECRI's focus is health care technology, health care risk and quality management, and health care environmental management. It provides information services and technical assistance to more than 5000 hospitals and more.