|
|
|
|
|
Search
12/16/2013
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Ivar E. Roth DPM, MPH
Just like there are competent and incompetent doctors, there are honest and devious experts. We should all not rally around an incompetent fellow podiatrist just because he is a fellow colleague. I have seen really bad podiatric doctors defended by other podiatrists who are equally as inept and dishonest. This also is a despicable act. Real injured parties need to be compensated fairly. What if your mother had malpractice performed on her. Would you turn a deaf ear?
We, as podiatrists, must uphold the profession first and defend both for the injured party, innocent doctors, and against any incompetent colleague. It is simply what we must do. So, just because a fellow podiatrist testifies for the plaintiff does not make him a traitor. Every case is different and it really comes down to the facts of the case. In reality, truth is powerful and hopefully (but not always) prevails.
Other messages in this thread:
12/30/2015
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Ira M. Baum, DPM
Assuming the podiatrist had malpractice coverage, who is responsible for the difference between their malpractice coverage limits and the $1,391.666 judgment? If the doctor is responsible, and hypothetically he/she was offered a settlement within the value of their limits, why would anyone challenge a malpractice suit that could bankrupt them? Take ego out of the equation, because the case docket may require the doctor to commit to 2 weeks for trial (2 weeks lost revenue from office) and if he/she wins, there is no financial remuneration.
So even if you win, you lose. The deck is stacked against the doctor. There is a serious need for tort reform. How this is initiated is beyond knowledge base. Maybe somebody could direct the grass roots on the how to get involved in tort reform.
Ira Baum, DPM, Miami, FL
10/23/2015
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Tom DeBenedictis, DPM
Twenty years ago, Dr. Jack Gorman was the "expert" witness against me in a malpractice case involving a post-operative infection. The plaintiff hired Dr. Gorman after reading his advertisement in a legal journal where he offered his services. At the time, he was so busy, he was unable to come to New Jersey, so my attorney had to go to PA and tape his testimony.
I also won my case, but Dr. Gorman at that time was well known to the attorneys on both sides of the aisle. The case would never have gone to trial if it was not for his testimony giving the plaintiff false hope, me a great deal of stress, and in many cases, just wasting a great deal of time and money. The only person profiting by these cases is Dr. Jack Gorman.
Tom DeBenedictis, DPM, Union City, NJ
10/18/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Peter Bregman, DPM
I am not sure whether there is an issue performing neurectomies in adjacent webspaces, but what I am sure of is that if this surgeon did decompressions in this case, it wouldn't have gone to court.
02/22/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Bryan C. Markinson, DPM
Once again another discourse about the righteousness of defense experts and their loathsome plaintiff expert counterparts. While the debate is perpetual, it simply hinges too much on our visceral reactions in this space. Of course, in this debate, it's easy to find support for the defense side, harder for the plaintiff side.
Making the statement, "I will never review for the plaintiff again (Jacobson)" and rationalizing it with, "They'll always find someone to testify against the truth," is simply out of touch and quite frankly immature. If Dr. Jacobson found himself on the bad side of a alleged deviation, you bet he would...
Editor's note: Dr. Markinson's extended-length letter can be read here.
02/21/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: Brian Kiel, DPM
I disagree with Dr. Katzen that a podiatrist should never testify against another podiatrist. To make a sweeping statement like that is not appropriate. I agree that it is wrong for a podiatrist or any physician to make a living as a plaintiff's expert witness. As we all know, there are people like that and that they will say anything to make a buck. However, there are instances when the acts by someone were so egregious that it would be unethical to refuse to evaluate or testify in a case. In a case where someone has to leave the office to do so and not get compensated for that time is unfair. To never testify against another podiatrist just because he or she is a podiatrist can be harmful to the public and allows those who might perpetrate repetitive malpractice to continue to practice unpunished.
02/19/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: J K. Winckelbach, DPM, Burton Katzen, DPM
I have had the privilege to know Dr. Harris for 48 years, both as a classmate and colleague. Dr. Harris is one of the most honest people I know. He is respected as one of the most knowledgeable podiatrists in his sub-specialty. If he testifies for the plaintiff, then you know he will be as fair as if he were to testify for a defendant. Unfortunately, there ARE bad outcomes, either from inadequate training, bad judgement, or perhaps a cavalier attitude, and those "patients" need to be represented fairly.
Dr. Harris, I am so glad you are all for "fairness" for plaintiffs. I also realize that in rare occasions, you may come across an unscrupulous member of our profession who deserves
to be punished. However, what you failed to mention is how much you profited by trying to "save the world" from these unscrupulous podiatrists.
Let me give you a suggestion. About twenty years ago, I re-operated on a case which had a horrible result. Since I was the only doctor who saw this patient after the original surgery, I was called on to review the case and testify. After reviewing the previous doctor's record, it was obvious...
Editor's note: Dr. Katzen's extended-length letter can be read here.
02/18/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1c
From: Michael M. Rosenblatt, DPM
Dr. Udell makes the point that some serious and egregious errors and malpractice does occur; and that these patients are entitled to a fair representation of their case in court. This usually requires expert testimony by a fellow professional in the same profession.
But the playing field is far from even. DPMs face certain opposition from practitioners who are in financial conflict with us. These allopathic professionals are concerned about financial issues as they relate to podiatry. The one area where we seem to have absolute parity is in our responsibility to patients and the reaction of the legal community to our work.
This financial opposition can result in medical doctors fomenting (frivolous) claims against podiatrists. At no point in our history as a profession have we ever had even close to the resources or power of allopathic medicine. For that reason alone, I think it is clear that those of us who have an opportunity to testify against fellow DPMs (including staff members at DPM colleges) have a responsibility to closely and carefully evaluate each case. Such testimony is highly profitable for the people who do it. But that is not an excuse to abuse that privilege.
02/18/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1B
From: Bryan C. Markinson, DPM, Alison D. Silhanek, DPM
An interpretation of the merits or lack of merit of a negligence case, or the ethical nature of any expert in such cases, SOLELY based on the snapshots reported in PM News is outrageous.
From what I have seen, Dr. Udell indeed is correct that gross negligence occurs, but it is rare. The gross negligence cases suggested by Dr. Udell are few and far between. Let us be honest here. Some podiatry school faculty are taking plaintiff's expert positions to pad their retirement accounts. It is morally bankrupt, our schools have done nothing to regulate it, and it needs to stop. And the only way to stop it is with repeated reminders to them that they are supporting morally bankrupt processes. If there was any way I could influence prospective students from those colleges which engage in this, I would. I hate to think that I am chasing at windmills here, but plaintiff and personal injury attorneys are part of what is wrong in the U.S., and I cannot help myself but try to fight the good fight.
02/18/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: Edwin J. Harris, DPM
I would like to respond to Drs. Silhanek and Steinberg on their recent comments regarding the posting of the results of a medical malpractice action in the State of New York in which I was expert for the plaintiff. I will state my case and I refuse to get involved in any ongoing debate
with them in this venue.
First, please do not malign Rosalind Franklin or the Dr. William M. Scholl College of Podiatric Medicine. I am a very part-time instructor with the lowest possible academic position, and I do not routinely use my affiliation as a professional credential.
Second, I would remind...
Editor's note: Dr. Harris' extended-length letter can be read here.
02/17/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1B
From: Elliot Udell, DPM
Dr. Silhankek raises an age-old complaint that many of us have against physicians ready and willing to testify against their colleagues in medical malpractice cases. As he pointed out in this most recent case, the plaintiff's experts are esteemed faculty members of a podiatric medical college. You can bet that their credentials were used in court to give credence to the plaintiff's case.
There are, however, two sides to this discussion. On one hand, it is troubling when a respected colleague testifies against one of his or her peers in an effort to bolster a frivolous lawsuit. On the other hand, there are some very bad mistakes that occur daily in both doctors' offices and in hospitals. Patients who suffer harm, as a result of blatant medical negligence, deserve their day in court and are entitled to expert representation.
02/17/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: Robert Scott Steinberg
Dr. Silhanek, the answer is simple. It's about profit. Experts don't seem to care about what is proper or ethical. Appearance is everything. You nailed the issue. These overly willing plaintiffs' experts are unethical. As for the colleges' ethics, why else would colleges be admitting more students than there are residency slots for? It seems that some of the colleges have become money mills.
02/15/2014
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Alison D. Silhanek, DPM
Yet another frivolous malpractice lawsuit; and with a plaintiff’s expert witness who is a faculty member of one of our podiatry colleges (at least according to its website). When are we, as a profession, going to stand up to fellow “colleagues” who will turn against us to testify for money in frivolous lawsuits? Why do our colleges, training the next generation of us, not step in to limit this chicanery? I understand gross negligence. But this lawsuit does not support that. Why are our schools not regulating the ability of its faculty to testify against one of their own in a frivolous suit? Shame on Scholl, and shame on Rosalind Franklin University.
12/18/2013
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Elliot Udell, DPM
Dr. Roth makes a good point by pointing out that there are cases where a person was legitimately injured by a doctor or hospital's negligence and that person deserves to be compensated. At the annual SAM conference held every year in Orlando, Dr. Merritt lectures on avoiding errors that we, as podiatrists, may make. Other medical doctors have written books and there have been documentaries on CNN on the whole gamut of medical errors. The situation is bad and getting worse.
Just today, an internist told me that his multi-doctor practice was just taken over by a corporation and he is now restricted from spending adequate time with any one patient. Other demands the new non-doctor owners are making on him are throwing him into the realm of not only making potential medical errors, but practicing unethically.
With Obamacare coming around the corner and millions of new patients entering the medical patient pool, will doctors who even want to spend adequate time with patients have the time and resources to do so? Potential problems now face us, including increased potential for mistakes and negligence. I wonder if the tort system as we know it is what is needed to protect the lives of patients.
12/17/2013
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Michael M. Rosenblatt, DPM
While Dr. Roth and I usually agree, I am still uncomfortable with testifying against a fellow DPM. I think we should all be. The tort/peer review legal systems are the areas where DPMs seem to have true "parity" with medical doctors. But those are the only ones. This means that the playing field is not level. I agree that we have to be responsible and also be held so for our treatment choices and actions. But whenever we are called to action against a fellow DPM, we should tread carefully, with the full understanding that we should avoid over-reacting.
In the case Dr. Roth is likely speaking about, there was a really excessive verdict against the DPM, even if you accept that he made a surgical error. The particular doctor who was the plaintiff's expert is known to frequently testify against DPMs, so this was not his first rodeo. I'm reminded of the history of the French Revolution, which clearly demonstrated that justice is more important for the tribunal than it is for their particular defendant at any one time. Their places can be easily "reversed" as a function of time. History can teach us a lot.
12/03/2013
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1B
From: Alison D. Silhanek, DPM
Am I the only person reading this post to realize that Dr. Steven Boc, the plaintiff’s witness, was an employee of the Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine? A supposed dedicated employee of one of our schools, who was molding our future podiatrists, is testifying against his colleagues? A paid gun working against us? How can our schools allow their affiliated doctors to act against other members of our profession? Shame on you, Dr. Boc. And shame on the Temple school for ignoring his opportunism at the expense of his colleagues. We as a profession need to stop being ashamed of our malpractice cases, as ridiculous as they may be, and start exposing the miscreants who try to discredit us.
Editor's note: Dr. Boc has not been affiliated with TUSPM for many years. Most podiatry school faculty testify only as defendants' witnesses. There have been, of course, rare exceptions .
12/03/2013
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: Charles M Lombardi, DPM
Anyone interested in having a copy of the testimony of any portion of this trial, especially that of Dr. Steven Boc, may contact me directly and I will forward it to you. I think you may find it interesting how many States of these United States Dr. Boc has testified in...always as a plaintiff's witness. You may also find it interesting that he was paid over $20,000 just for his testimony in this case. You may also find it interesting at one time he had a separate LLP set up just for his malpractice work. You may also find it interesting that he is a residency director at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia and was former Chairman of the Surgery Department at Temple University College of Podiatric Medicine!
I believe you will also find it interesting how great a job my attorney, Glen Pewarski, did in researching him! Please feel free to contact me
|
| |
|
|
|
