Excellent! Absolutely beautiful.
 

This post has been removed by the author.
 

I got chills.

Flea
 

I guess it's the better way to put it than the obvious: "this is a hard-working, ethical, honest doctor who did his/her very best for the patient, despite which things turned out poorly. So let's take him/her down together, shall we? Follow me, won't you, past the reality as we ignore the good and make it look like bad?" Sounds like an unfair fight: someone who only tried to do medical good (the inference from your opening description) vs someone willing to do whatever it takes to get a legal result. Brilliant, indeed.
 

there is a special place in hell reserved for lawyers who perform this kind of disservice
 

Ever wonder why lawyers are one of the least respected professions? This certainly doesn't improve your image.

Congrats on such high dollar cases - it's quite classy indeed.
 

Interesting comments, considering that I advocated candor and honesty about the physician instead of unnecessary confrontation.

--ET
 

You are advertising candor and honesty as part of an act. The goal isn't to be honest it's to show that a supposedly good doctor is actually bad.

Is there any situation where a good doctor makes a mistake and you wouldn't consider a law suit? You're still in it more money. If it means preying on good doctors who make all too human errors once in a while, that's obviously no problem for your ethics.
 

The comments reflect, mostly, a belief that it is unfair to reduce the effect of an entirely irrelevant factor from a trial that is supposed to be about whether the defendant was negligent at a particular moment.

I suspect the same commentators would applaud the effective use – by defense counsel - of a patient's disfigurement, whether or not it is irrelevant.
 

Eric,

I'm pleased you find the comments interesting.

The point of the exercise you describe in your post is to cause an attractive doctor to look unattractive, is it not? It sounded as though you described a technique designed to trip up an otherwise attractive witness, is it not? I'm just a stupid pediatrician, not a lawyer, so please correct me if I'm wrong.

But I thought the point of the exercise is to demonstrate that malpractice has occurred! What do "gotcha" moments have to do with it? I think I know the answer: The exercise in the courtroom isn't really about the search for truth. It's about obtaining compensation for your client.

best,

Flea
 

Flea:

I think you misread the blog posting. The purpose is to first level the playing field as between witnesses. As you know, education and physical attractiveness have nothing to do with honesty (one need only look to politics to confirm that). I'm sure you've met highly educated people you wouldn't trust, and the uneducated that you would.

Second, by acknowledging the issue, one is simply being candid about the facts -- in the scenario I set forth (an MD chosen by the patient), the patient trusted the MD, and now feels betrayed in some fashion. (That might well be the reason the call to the attorney's office was initially made.) If the MD made a good impression on the patient, s/he probably will to the jury. It is silly to think that the situation should be ignored, or approached by a full-scale attack on the MD. With the superficial issue hopefully neutralized, one can hopefully try the case based on the facts.

As to whether a doctor (or any other witness) is "tripped up," that is dependent on whether the witness strays from the truth. I've merely pointed out that if that happens, it can be something quite memorable for a juror if their expectations were high.

--ET
 

Eric,

I think I understand now what you mean by "leveling the playing field". Thanks for the clarification. On this point, only a small question is begged: Does Attorney Turkewitz approach UN-attractive doctor-defendants differently? And if so, why?

Another question about "slip-ups". You appear to draw a distinction between slip-ups per se and "contradictions from deposition testimony". Can you explain to the (as yet) uninitiated what you're referring to? In my brief experience with malpractice litigation, the depositions are very long. I take it we're supposed to read these before trial and make sure we don't say anything different at trial.

But years often pass between deposition and trial. A doctor may say something contradictory at trial for precisely this reason! Or is that the point? In any case, suffice to say, I plan to read and memorize my depositions.

Thanks for the tip.

Flea
 

Responding to Flea:

Does Attorney Turkewitz approach UN-attractive doctor-defendants differently? And if so, why?

It probably becomes a non-issue. If I thought the person was personable when we met at the deposition, or had some type of exceptional credentials,I might say something so the jury knows what to expect, and remind them the case has to be determined on the facts of this particular case. Defense counsel might do the same if they thought the jury would like my client. Remember that my advice about cross-examining docs is equally appropriate for crossing a plaintiff.

Another question about "slip-ups". You appear to draw a distinction between slip-ups per se and "contradictions from deposition testimony". Can you explain to the (as yet) uninitiated what you're referring to?

That really depends on the actual facts. If a lawyer tried to make a big distinction between "I saw the patient 4 times" and "I saw the patient a few times," the jury would think you have nothing better to talk about and dump your case. It has to be meaningful, such as "I usually see 5 patients per hour" when the appointment book actually shows 15 per hour.

But years often pass between deposition and trial. A doctor may say something contradictory at trial for precisely this reason!

Sure, but the jury knows this. Fading recollections are normal for both you and for the plaintiff. If there is a difference between dep and trial testimony, the dep will be read back to you and you will be faced with, "Is your recollection better today than 2 years ago when you gave the testimony?" (It might be, by the way, if something about the trial spurred a recollection.) The jury will determine if any inconsistencies, either yours or the plaintiff's, were meaningful.

In any case, suffice to say, I plan to read and memorize my depositions.

First, I didn't realize this was personal for you, and now understand why you took a swipe at me on your blog. But I wish you well, since by your tone you obviously feel the suit is without merit.

Second, one of my favorite sayings is, "Those that tell the truth don't have to remember anything." It is something I might use to prep clients, and if need be, something I might say to a jury if there are truly meaningful contradictions.

--ET
 

Eric,

"you obviously feel the suit is without merit".

Why on earth would I and my lawyer AND my insurance company choose to litigate this if any of us had any doubt as to whether I committed malpractice? If such doubts existed, I daresay we would not be preparing for trial now.

Flea
 

Flea:

Why on earth would I and my lawyer AND my insurance company choose to litigate this if any of us had any doubt as to whether I committed malpractice?

In New York, where I practice, cases rarely settle before jury selection, even if the liability is clear (like a retained lap pad). So the mere fact that the case is pending isn't any reflection (to me) as to the underlying merits. I wrote about some of the reasons in No, your medical malpractice case will NOT settle fast.

--ET