02/18/2014    Edwin J. Harris, DPM

RE: Alleged Improper Diagnosis, Informed Consent, and Improperly Performed Surgery (NY) (Alison D. Silhanek, DPM, Robert Steinberg, 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 both of you that a
frivolous lawsuit is one that lacks legal merit
and has little or no chance of being won. The
fact that a claim is lost does not imply that it
was frivolous. Frivolity is not an issue when a
plaintiff is injured and requires considerable
additional treatment.

Third, a plaintiff, just as a defendant, is
entitled to expert opinion on the quality and
appropriateness of care rendered. If it is good
enough for defendants to have qualified experts,
should that not be extended to plaintiffs as well?
This is necessary to protect patients and treating
physicians alike.

Fourth, for me personally, I am a "working Doc"
and a practicing pediatric foot and ankle surgeon
who has considerable hands-on experience in the
pathology of this litigation and I perform the
surgery involved in this case. I don't make a
living as an expert. In over forty years of
practice (not counting my own personal malpractice
suit), I have been involved in the workup of six
cases. Three were for the plaintiff and three were
for the defense. After reviewing the cases, I
told two of the plaintiffs' attorneys that they
didn't have a case and I refused to participate. I
told one defense attorney that his case was not
defendable and that he should settle as best as
possible.

I reviewed this New York case in question and
formed the opinions that I expressed in trial
testimony based on my experience and not as an
"expert" willing to say anything for money. I
stand by my opinion and testimony 100%. As you
know, depositions and trial testimony are open to
discovery and anyone can obtain these with minimal
effort. After perusing these data, anyone willing
to invest the time can decide whether this case
was or was not frivolous and whether my opinions
were or were not medically sound.

Fifth, I have no use for colleagues who testify in
ways that bend facts, hide truths, and put on a
play act for the sole purpose of winning a case
without regard to merit or lack thereof. It is
not a game. Both plaintiffs and defendants are
real people and they get hurt if their rights are
trampled on by unscrupulous individuals.

I would make a suggestion. In order to be an
expert for plaintiff or defense, one has to be a
licensed practitioner and almost certainly must be
credentialed by a certifying board as well as be a
member of a state or national society. I submit
that it is about time for the certifying boards,
state and national societies and state licensing
boards to make it a requirement that any time a
licensed practitioner, diplomate or a member of
one of the societies acts as an expert for either
side, he must submit a copy of his deposition and
trial testimony for peer review with the
understanding that he may face sanctioning for
improper behavior - including the loss of license
to practice.

Edwin J. Harris, DPM, Westchester, IL,
Eharrisdpm@AOL.COM

There are no more messages in this thread.