From: Charles Myers, DPM
After speaking with colleagues in and outside of the profession, there are cases of false testimony by expert witnesses. The big issue is when a person provides false testimony in your practicing state (Expert witness has license outside your state), there is very little recourse that can be taken. Trying to discipline experts for false testimony is almost impossible.
Charles Myers, DPM, Conway, SC
Editor's note: This topic is now closed.
11/11/2022
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM NEWS JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Chris Robertozzi, DPM
Dr. Grife makes some valid points about how attorneys for the plaintiff and defense get paid. That can in itself be a lengthy discussion. I am a little confused, however, about other statements that he made, all of which revolve around the word "lie". Webster defines a lie as an “intentionally false statement or impression”. That is completely different from the fact that experts are retained to provide their opinion based upon the facts, in Dr. Grife’s own words. He asks, is the expert lying who under oath in court testified that the only way a patient could have tarsal tunnel is if the patient was confined to a wheelchair? The answer is yes.
You can go to any podiatric or orthopedic book on tarsal tunnel and it will list other reasons such as...
Editor's note: Dr. Robertozzi's extended-length letter can be read here.
11/08/2022
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM NEWS JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Jay S. Grife, DPM, JD, MA
I would like to comment in response to the numerous doctors who wrote commentary as to a case of malpractice in Virginia. The thrust of the responses focused upon the testifying expert, in our case podiatric surgeons, who provide their expertise as opinions in medical malpractice cases. It appears that the primary complaint from the authors of those commentaries was that experts lie in their testimony in depositions and in court. As a former board-certified podiatrist as well as a current attorney, I must respectfully disagree with the term "liar."
Experts, whether retained for the plaintiff or for the defense, are asked to provide their opinions based upon the facts presented to them. As we all realize, opinions vary. In my 25 years of being an attorney representing plaintiffs in malpractice cases (for clarification for those who do not know me, I was advised by our own insurance mutual company to represent plaintiffs and...
Editor's note: Dr. Grife's extended-length lettter can be read here.
11/07/2022
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM NEWS JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Elliot Udell, DPM
The issues raised on whether an expert witness is lying or telling the truth is making an area of our jurisprudence system seem too "cut and dry." The issue is often far more complex. A physician may be sued for negligence if it can be proved that he or she harmed a patient by practicing out of the norm in a particular community or profession. Here is the problem: Most of the attorneys on either side, are not doctors. In order to prove their case, they have to bring in a doctor from that specialty and prove via cross examination, show that the doctor being sued was not practicing in the same way as his or her colleagues, and this resulted in harm.
The problem is that many doctors do not practice "evidence-based medicine" but from personal opinion. Example: Many years ago at a board meeting of the American Society of Podiatric Medicine, we polled the attendees who were all in academia about what constitutes a diabetic foot exam. There were no two opinions that were the same. Each esteemed doctor had a strong unwavering opinion. Had each been testifying on that topic in court, you would get two different stories but neither would be a lie. Unfortunately, in many cases, these opinions and not evidence are what can sway a jury.
Elliot Udell, DPM, Hicksville, NY
11/04/2022
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM NEWS JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Richard A. Simmons, DPM
As shocked as we are as podiatric medical specialists about perceived liars in the courtroom, regretfully, this is just a sign of the times. “The truth” is what a skilled attorney can convince a jury to believe is the truth. We don’t have to look far outside of our profession to see the differences between Facts and Alternative Facts.
For instance, in 2020 were people dying from COVID-19 infections or the roll-out of the 5-G wireless network? All of us are able to find theories that conform to our beliefs. The skilled attorney in a courtroom simply exploits this. We are in a totally new ballpark today.
Richard A. Simmons, DPM, Rockledge, FL
10/31/2022
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM NEWS JURY VERDICT REPORTER)
From: Chris Robertozzi, DPM
This seems to me to be an example of a case that should have never been filed. From reading the article, it appears the plaintiff’s expert lied at trial about the cause of the post-operative complication. Rest assured that this isn’t the only case where the plaintiff’s expert has lied. For the last few years, I have had the opportunity to defend my fellow colleagues in malpractice cases. The majority of them have outrageous lies. For example, the first case I defended, without going into all the details, the plaintiff’s expert stated the surgery was unnecessary because everyone knows that gout is caused by trauma. Consequently, medication should have been prescribed and no surgery should have been performed.
I filed a complaint with the NJ State Board of Medical Examiners since the case was filed in...
Editor's note: Dr. Robertozzi's extended-length letter can be read here.
