|
|
|
|
|
Search
03/05/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1
From: Allen M. Jacobs, DPM
Dr. Grife suggests that with limited malpractice liability insurance, a plaintiff attorney is less inclined to file a malpractice action. This may or may not be true in a particular case. The ability of a plaintiff to seek payment from a podiatrist when the judgement or settlement is in excess of malpractice policy limits varies from state to state. Asset protection is important to consider for any healthcare provider.
In some states under some circumstances, the plaintiff can, for example, place a lien or levies on your personal assets such as bank accounts, homes, etc. You may be required to satisfy a judgment by taking out a loan against your hard earned assets. Sometimes the jury awards are later adjusted. You should consult with an appropriate healthcare attorney regarding asset protection rules and regulations and applicable strategies relevant...
Editor's note: Dr. Jacobs' extended-length letter can be read here.
Other messages in this thread:
03/07/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1B
From: Aaron Solomon, DPM
The Evans calcaneal osteotomy is a procedure that I have utilized throughout my career. I was told early in my residency training that the Evans is an extremely powerful osteotomy as it can provide triplane correction to an unstable flatfoot. I am not saying anything that those reading this do not already know, and this is not meant to be a treatise on the Evans calcaneal osteotomy. We all know when done correctly this osteotomy greatly helps those with a painful unstable flatfoot.
In my practice, the majority of the people receiving this osteotomy are those who suffer from posterior tibial tendon dysfunction, and it is done in concert with other procedures. Once again, I am not saying anything that my colleagues do not already know. What I and perhaps many of us do not know are the details of the osteotomy performed in the aforementioned litigation. Were the ligaments of the calcaneocuboid joint compromised? Was the long plantar ligament...
Editor's note: Dr. Solomon's extended-length letter can be read here.
03/07/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: Jay Grife, DPM, JD
Allen, the cases you cite are not typical results and are primarily outliers. Of course, an egregious case led to an excess verdict, that is one above a doctor’s insurance coverage. But most podiatry cases settle for amounts below the typical $250,000 limits. Of course, venues matter when it comes to jury awards.
Personally, I do not subscribe to low limit policies for malpractice coverage but mentioned it because a local group of general surgeons all reduced coverage to $250,000 per doctor and saw a dramatic reduction in lawsuits.
Also, besides asset protection, which I strongly suggest, most excess verdicts can be handled through bankruptcy. Not a great alternative but where available, it's a cure.
Jay Grife, DPM, JD, Jacksonville, FL
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.
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
|
| |
|
|
|
