02/22/2014    Bryan C. Markinson, DPM

Alleged Improper Diagnosis, Informed Consent, and Improperly Performed Surgery (NY) (George Jacobson, 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, its easy to find support for the
defense side, harder for the plaintiff side.

Making a statement that "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 need a competent plaintiff's
expert to point out to the suing side that the
case has no merit.

Does Dr. Jacobson and most who believe as he does,
think that there is no one out there that could do
that? Oh and yes, they get paid for that opinion
also. I have done it several times and know many
others that do. I also know many defense-only scum
who would defend Josef Mengele, and do it multiple
times. Some of them are also faculty and
professors at our esteemed institutions. They say
things in court that they would never say in a
classroom. And yes, there are plaintiffs experts
who will say anything, and even testify in cases
for which they have no expertise. But the scum
floats on both sides of the aisle, of that I am
certain and have born witness.

I have also seen attorneys on both sides of a case
hire the experts from the other side for other
pending cases! Doesn't that make you feel like you
have a real dedicated attorney out for only your
interest? They should bring back malpractice
review panels of impartial, paid, and blinded
trained experts prior to a case getting the go
ahead. The person bringing suit should pay the
cost of this, just like paying a fee for suing
someone in small claims court. Make the fee big
enough for people or attorneys to think twice and
award return of the fee if they are victorious.

3/4 of these cases are defense verdicts. If truly
disingenuous plaintiffs experts are to blame, how
much more in favor of defense would the balance go
and still protect the public from the "real"
negligence? Think about it.

Bryan C. Markinson, DPM, NY, NY,
bryan.markinson@mountsinai.org

There are no more messages in this thread.