Find Mediators Near You:

Another Fun Technique for Cross-Examining Defense Medical Experts

Baltimore Injury Lawyer Blog by John Bratt

As you can tell by some of my recent blog posts, I have been spending a lot of time lately cross-examining defense medical experts. So I thought I would let you in on another fun little technique I use: Using the defense experts to bring in favorable opinions.
Related Information
Cross-Examining Defense Medical Experts With Their Own Ethics Rules
Ron Miller on "Polarizing the Case"
Review of David Ball’s Book "Damages"
In cases where the plaintiff has had complicated or prolonged medical treatment, it is often not possible to present testimony from all of the treating medical professionals that had favorable opinions. This can be because of time constraints, because there would be overlap in the testimony, or because the economics of the case don’t allow it. But that doesn’t mean that there is no way to get these favorable opinions in front of a jury.
One way to do this is through the testimony of the defense medical expert. Usually these witnesses are provided with a complete set of the medical records in the case prior to examining the plaintiff and/or writing their report. Often, the report itself lists and/or summarizes everything they reviewed. The witness will usually agree that they reviewed all of the medical records and considered them in formulating their opinions.
Then I simply take the defense expert through every favorable opinion expressed by a treating doctor.
Did you review the reports of Dr. X’s treatment of the plaintiff?
The reports of the 23 visits he had between July 1, 2007 and August 28, 2008?
You agree that Dr. X had a greater opportunity to observe and evaluate the plaintiff than you did?
Did Dr. X reach a diagnosis?
What was his diagnosis?
Do you agree with that diagnosis?
Why not?

This can be a very effective approach, especially where there are several favorable opinions to work with. You have brought out that there are favorable opinions from other doctors. You have established that the other doctor(s) saw the plaintiff many times over a long interval. Finally, you have “polarized the case” by making the defense expert specifically disagree with these favorable opinions.

I can’t claim credit for these techniques. They are derived from the writings of Rick Friedman, David Ball, Dorothy Clay Sims, and others. But I am sure having fun incorporating them into my practice.

                        author

John Bratt

John Bratt is an attorney at Miller & Zois, LLC. He represents injured plaintiffs in all trial and appellate courts in Maryland. He also accepts attorney referrals for all types of civil appeals. MORE >

Featured Mediators

ad
View all

Read these next

Category

Conflict Tipping Podcast Episode 19 – Reincorporating Combatants in Colombia with Dr. Solveig Richter and Laura Camila Barrios Sabogal

In this episode, Host, Laura May, talks with guests, Dr. Solveig Richter and Laura Camila Barrios Sabogal about Colombia as a case study for how conflict behaves and how conflict...

By Laura May
Category

The Measure of Damages for Past Medical Expenses

Cabrera v. E. Rojas Properties: The Second District Speaks on the Hanif/Nishihama Issue On Febrary 24, 2011, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Eight ordered the publication of its...

By Robert Tessier
Category

A Secret About Mediators

From the blog of Nancy Hudgins I hope not to get drummed out of the mediation profession for revealing this.Mediators strive to be neutral, or as Ken Cloke so eloquently...

By Nancy Hudgins
×