How a Medical Expert Witness Avoids Retention Bias

Every medical malpractice attorney is initially "treated" to a one-sided account (then the real work begins)

...

𝙀𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 patient that suffers an adverse outcome

Thinks medical malpractice has occurred

And demands to be made whole

Hence a 🗡️plaintiff's med mal attorney is retained


𝙀𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙮 physician who is named as part of a lawsuit

Thinks 𝙉𝙊 medical malpractice has occurred

And demands that the charges are dropped

Hence a 🛡️defense med mal attorney is retained


Whether medical malpractice has truly occurred

𝙄𝙨 𝙧𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙗𝙨𝙤𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙚 (𝙡𝙞𝙠𝙚 𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙝 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩𝙮 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚)


When asked to review the medicine I proceed to:

• Ignore the retaining party
• Ignore the patient's testimony
• ignore the timeline that is given
• Ignore the pre-conceived case ideas
• Ignore the physician's account of events

And evaluate the medicine on it's merits alone


Then I stake my reputation and provide my thoughts

• Backed by logic
• Backed by literature
• Backed by case reviews
• Backed by common sense
• Backed by ongoing teaching
• Backed by customary practice
• Backed by active clinical practice

This is the only way to do it


❌It is never:

"That's just the way it is done"


✅It is always:

"The evidence behind what transpired is ..."


𝘽𝙚𝙬𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙚𝙭𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙩 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙘𝙖𝙣'𝙩 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙪𝙥 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙞𝙢𝙨



𝙃𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪 𝙙𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙪𝙣𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙨𝙩𝙞𝙘 𝙘𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨?