Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Is it difficult to find plaintiff's
experts ...the kind doctor who really understands
the breadth of brain injury in much the way we've been talking about.
It's very hard. Most people who are actually good experts are busy
practitioners
and they don't like the litigation process. They don't like being put
through the wringer. They don't like having to give yp
time helping real patients. They
mostly don't see helping this
particular patient or plaintiff get monetary compensation. They don't see
that as a medical issue
even though if the person doesn't get the money they will ni get the treatment
the doctor recommends.
What would you say to a physiatrist or a neurologist
who has some knowledge
about brain injury...has some belief in it some advocacy for it,
to convince them that
going into a courtroom is
is a good thing? Every doctor every real doctor takes an oath to help his patient.
Every real doctor has an ethical obligation to
advocate for treatment of his patient
It's no good if your doctor says you have this illness
here's a prescription for this drug, if you can afford the drug. The doctor has an
ethical obligation to help you get it. It
does mean he has to give you a job but he should try to help you. And
the other thing that most doctors are quite persuadable
by is to explain to them that what's being told in the courtroom
is not medical science. And we need someone who is a true
Medical Scientest to come in and teach the judge or teach the jury
what the truth is and
most doctors love teaching so that will often get them in.
You say that doctors
have an oath. Don't the defense doctors and the same oath?
Oddly enough no.
They take an oath as physicians, the ones that are physicians as opposed to
allied professionals but their view
is universally and have checked into thousands and thousands of doctors in
thousands and thousands of cases,
and they deny that they have any ethical obligation
to the person they are examining for this lawsuit.
And that means that they have no better right to speak about him
then someone who works at a dry cleaners. So what you're saying is that the
doctors who
are there on behalf of the plaintiff have established a relationship with the
plaintiff have an obligation to him,
but the defense doctors only an obligation to the defense attorney?
True. One of the differences that
comes up every time is
if if I pick a doctor and you know I don't speak for every lawyer obviously
but the doctors I pick to come to trial
to look at my patient, to come to trial aren't necessarily the best
doctors
but they're the best teachers
because I think that's their role. I want them to come. I want them to be honest.
They teach me too
I don't mind a doctor who examines my client and phones me up and says, he doesn't have what
you think he has.
That's okay, that's what we want.
The plaintiff then goes to the doctor that I've picked
my client trust that doctor so he'll tell him everything
as truthfully as he can. If they go to a defense doctor
they start out not trusting the doctor. And you know most lawyers tell them
be as honest as you can and so on
but they arrived there distrusting the doctor and and imagine if you had a
brain injury that affected say
your libido the that you're having ***
issues, imagine telling a stranger
all about the details of your *** dysfunction
when you know his only job is to brand you a liar.