|
|
|
|
|
Search
03/27/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: Daniel Chaskin, DPM
"The plaintiffs’ counsel cited Defendant’s deposition testimony, in which he admitted that he did not provide Plaintiff or his wife with any written instructions regarding post-operative movement for his legs, which counsel said was a departure from the standard of care." My opinion is that everyone with any type of swelling in the leg needs to have an MD or practitioner licensed to treat the leg refer the patient for a venous Doppler. The defense should have immediately said that the treatment of a pulmonary embolism is out of the scope of license for a podiatrist and therefore there was no standard of care related to the treatment of a pulmonary embolism by a podiatrist.
During the November 2 exam of the Plaintiff, the Defendant had asked him if he had any pain in his chest, any difficulty breathing and/or had pain in his legs. The defense cited the medical records which demonstrated that Defendant assessed Plaintiff’s left leg and ankle, and the Plaintiff did not have any complaints of pain. The findings indicated to Defendant that Plaintiff did not have a blood clot, the defense asserted.
Daniel Chaskin, DPM, Ridgewood, NY
Other messages in this thread:
04/04/2025
RESPONSES/COMMENTS (PM JURY VERDICT REPORTER) - PART 1A
From: Allen M. Jacobs, DPM
"Standard of care" is a legal, not medical, concept. The definition of "standard of care" can and does vary from state to state. Juries are instructed as to the definition of "standard of care" in each particular state. For example, in some states, the term average is applied to the expected care rendered by a podiatrist. However, in some states the fact that a podiatrist provided less than average care is not assumed to be negligent care, otherwise 50% of those in practice would be considered negligent. In other states, terms like "reasonable care" are applied.
Remember however, the interpretation of these varied definitions will be interpreted by expert witnesses and lawyers and translated to the jury as such. This is why the selection of a capable and experienced lawyer is very important. It is why the selection of a competent expert witness is important. It is why the venue and the judge and many other factors are considered in the evaluation of each case and its merits for successful defense.
With specific reference to protocols for post-operative utilization of anticoagulants, you must evaluate each patient based on...
Editor's note: Dr. Jacobs' 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 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 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 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
|
| |
|
|
|
