Orlando Medical Malpractice Lawyers Find Truth in Jury Bias Study
In our medical malpractice cases, we always find prospective jurors with strong opinions against medical malpractice claims. Many folks simply believe that doctors should not be sued as long they tried their best. Unless these prospective jurors find that a doctor intended to do harm, they do not believe a doctor should be sued. A recent study on juror bias in medical malpractice cases reveals that most people not only favor doctors going into medical malpractice trials, but easily find for the doctor if there is any doubt about the plaintiff’s claim.
A study by Philip Peters Jr., J.D., a professor at the University of Missouri, Columbia School of Law, entitled "Doctors and Juries," presents an analysis of medical liability lawsuits from 1989 to 2006. Peters reports that juries can identify weak allegations against physicians and that 80 percent to 90 percent of the time, jurors come to the same decisions that independent legal experts would have made. In addition the study finds that juries accept the testimony of the doctor’s expert when there is any conflict in the evidence. If that occurs the jury seems to dismiss the testimony of the plaintiff's expert.
"From the perspective of malpractice defendants, at least, jury performance is remarkably good," wrote Peters in the study. Importantly for all plaintiff malpractice lawyers, the study finds that patients lose about half the cases they would have been expected to win. Again, this emphasizes the need for practitioners to simplify cases and embrace all of the facts. As the patient’s lawyer we must never run from difficult facts. This study demonstrates the need to deal with apparent inconsistencies in the proof and turn them to your advantage.
In one of our cases, for example, a patient failed to return for a follow-up visit. The doctor and his expert both claimed that if the patient simply returned all the necessary care would have been provided and the tragedy avoided. In essence, this was the classic “blame game.” Rather than ignore this "bad evidence" or run from the fact that our client missed an appointment, we emphasized the fact that the defendant was contacted after the scheduled visit and never asked to see the decedent. We questioned the defendant about how important the studies were that he claimed he would have performed. We asked “if these studies were so important, would you agree that it would have been even more urgent to do those studies 2 days after the scheduled visit when you were speaking with your patient?” Sadly in this case, the defendant failed to instruct his patient to come right in to do the necessary studies. This, in our view, really strikes at the heart of the defense, destroys the doctor’s credibility and eliminates any inconsistencies in the proof.
