Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The first installment of this article discussed how facts and opinions are not the only things a jury considers in deciding the outcome of a medical malpractice case; jurors also pay close attention to large and small gaffes that may show an expert is biased. How can you best exploit these lapses when showing that the other side's experts are less reliable than they might appear?
Recent rulings of importance to you and your practice.
Features
Because the issue of damages is so intertwined with the issue of causation in a medical malpractice action, and because such actions are unique in that a defendant doctor can be negligent without being the cause of any injury, the authors submit that a defaulting defendant should be permitted to introduce evidence on the issue of whether the claimed injury resulted from the alleged malpractice, or from another factor or factors, in whole or in part.
Features
When complex medical issues are at stake in a trial, attorneys have to address not just the details of the science to allow the jury to engage in its search for truth.
In a case that did not involve a medical malpractice allegation but that could affect the prosecution of cases against the United States for botched medical care, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held that a lawsuit could not go forward until a "sum certain" in damages was alleged.