What happens when an expert contradicts himself?

cottonmouth snake

cottonmouth snake

Every medical malpractice  lawyer has this recurrent nightmare: You bring a case to trial with all the ducks in a row. Your expert gave a great deposition.  Then he gets up on the stand and turns to jello.  He contradicts half of what he said at his deposition and stumbles through the little he didn’t contradict.  The judge gets restive and jurors start to frown.  I usually wake up at that point.

A related phantasmagoria rattled a trial lawyer in Lagrange, Georgia recently.    His client had been in such a bad automobile wreck that she had a stroke.    She was seen by several physicians in the emergency room, including a general surgeon who failed to diagnose her ruptured spleen.  The poor lady died two weeks later and the pathologist opined that she died from the ruptured spleen.

The accident happened in 1997 and though I can’t even speculate why this litigation has taken more than 13 years and counting, a little delay surely must be attributed to a side battle about the testimony of the plaintiff’s expert.  To get a medical malpractice lawsuit going in Georgia and in many other states, the plaintiff must file an affidavit swearing that some act of the defendant failed to meet the standard of care.  In his affidavit, the expert said that if the general surgeon had intervened, the lady would have survived.  In his deposition, however, the expert only gave her a 50-50 chance of survival.  Because Georgia law requires that proof in a medical malpractice trial must rise to a “reasonable degree of medical probability,” which requires that the patient needed slightly more than a 50-50 chance of survival, the defendant moved for summary judgment.  The judge denied summary judgment and an interlocutory appeal followed.  A sharply divided Georgia Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the plaintiff, so that this case will proceed, however, one of the judges openly called on the Georgia Supreme Court to change the law.

The majority opinion was that conflicting testimony by an expert is a credibility issue for the jury to decide, not a judge.  Although this result would make perfect sense to an average four-year old (quick, go out and find me a four-year old, as Groucho Marx once said), lawyers spend hours struggling over such issues.   In Georgia, as in most states, we have a legal doctrine that allows the judge to believe the worst if a party to the litigation gives self-contradictory testimony.  Typically, and especially if the self-contradictory party is the plaintiff, the judge will believe the worst and throw the case out of court.  But, our courts have been (so far) unwilling to extend the rule of self contradiction to experts.  The judge who called for the Supreme Court to reverse itself on this stance gave this extreme hypothetical:  Suppose the expert admits during his deposition that he had been smoking marijuana when he signed the affidavit and that the affidavit was a pack of lies. Should the defendant have to go to the time and expense of a jury trial to be vindicated?  Somehow I just can’t imagine any judge allowing a case to proceed in which the expert admitted he lied in his affidavit.  After all,  the judge is the gatekeeper of all expert testimony here in Georgia and being a dope-smoking liar seems to me a likely disqualifying trait.  But then again, some accuse me of having about as much common sense as a four-year old.

Reading the tea leaves of what the Supreme Court will say about this case, I believe that this ruling will stand.   The Supreme Court just threw out caps on pain-and-suffering damages ruling unanimously that the Georgia constitution guarantees that the “right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate.”   Allowing a judge to cashier a case because of the expert’s credibility or lack thereof seems to me to encroach upon the traditional role of the jury.  It is often said that you can never know what a jury is going to do.  The same can be said about judges and Justices of the Supreme Court.  I could be completely wrong about our Supreme Court.  Keep posted.


About Public Protection Lawyer

lawyer and physician
This entry was posted in Medical Malpractice. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to What happens when an expert contradicts himself?

  1. Pingback: Has anyone worked with Anadyne therapy? | Infrared Coagulation

  2. Great information! I’ve been looking for something like this for a while now. Thanks!

  3. Passing the CNA Exam says:

    Wow this is a great resource.. I’m enjoying it.. good article

  4. sts says:

    It is always pleasure to read your blog, will back here soon

  5. financial aid for college says:

    This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I enjoy seeing websites that understand the value of providing a prime resource for free. I truly loved reading your post. Thanks!

  6. TomPier says:

    great post as usual!

  7. nursing schools says:

    this post is very usefull thx!

  8. Kristel Yerbich says:

    Hey could I quote some of the material found in this post if I reference you with a link back to your site?

  9. forex robot says:

    nice post. thanks.

  10. school grants says:

    My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!

  11. dental hygienist says:

    found your site on del.icio.us today and really liked it.. i bookmarked it and will be back to check it out some more later

  12. Eddie Brusuelas says:

    Hello, I was reading your article and it somehow seems that I have seen that before… Anyway, can you, can you, please, present some more topics about that issue? Because it is very interesting now because this is the topic is on the wave. Till next time!

  13. Cecil Guiel says:

    Hello,Superb blogging dude! i am Fed up with using RSS feeds and do you use twitter?so i can follow you there:D.
    PS:Do you considered putting video to the blog to keep the people more entertained?I think it works.Kind regards, Cecil Guiel

  14. ultrasound technician says:

    This is such a great resource that you are providing and you give it away for free. I enjoy seeing websites that understand the value of providing a prime resource for free. I truly loved reading your post. Thanks!

  15. Pepe Jeans Shirt says:

    Just write like you’re talking to your friends. And soon, they will be.

  16. Martin Mexicano says:

    Im surprised to have found this blog, I though I was the only one writing about this…thanks. – Offshore Company Formation

  17. emt training says:

    nice post. thanks.

  18. forex robot says:

    Keep posting stuff like this i really like it

  19. far infrared saunas says:

    Hmmm…very good to find out, there had been without a doubt numerous elements that I had not concept of before.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s