Re: Digest for fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony@googlegroups.com - 5 Messages in 2 Topics

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Jordan Barnett

unread,
Dec 25, 2009, 9:53:52 AM12/25/09
to fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com
I would propose also that one of the criteria would be payment for witness duties to be inline with typical clinical duties.  The current system promotes prostalization.  As an Emergency Medicine physician, I was laughed at the first time I was asked to be an expert witness and responded to the question of what fee I charge.   I requested the same rate I got for clinical.   I was told the minimum I could ask for was 3x what I get to work in the ER!

I obviously discovered one of the reasons why there are physicians in Emergency Medicine who do a minimum of shifts at dead ERs, not up to date on the literature and current practice, spending all their time on the witness stand.

Jordan
On Dec 24, 2009, at 7:48 PM, fellowship-for-accurate-c...@googlegroups.com wrote:

Group: http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony/topics

 Topic: New idea
    Judge Thomas <ne...@hamiltontn.gov> Dec 24 09:30AM -0800 ^
     
    For some reason the web would not me reply to outgoing e-mails. I
    think the ideas just discussed are great, but I am headed out for the
    Holidays and want to think about the details, includinga listing of
    unqualifies experts as well.
     
    missde...@aol.com Dec 24 08:04AM -0500 ^
     
    I agree, this should be pursued.? R. DePersio
     
     
     
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Gen...@aol.com
    To: fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com
    Sent: Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:15 pm
    Subject: Re: Expert witness certification
     
    GREAT IDEA.I doubt ABMS would take up the challenge, but perhaps the Amer Acad of Physican Specialists. (AAPS)
    ?
    In a message dated 12/23/2009 3:11:47 P.M. Central Standard Time, dpriv...@gmail.com writes:
    We all share a desire to seek ways to reform the medical expert
    witness arena such that the discipline can become more dependably
    honest and accountable. We have not communicated as an affinity group
    in many months as there does not appear to be any new ideas as to how
    to achieve this goal. For this reason, I would like to submit a
    concept which is by no means new, but which may be worthy of
    discussion. I'm thinking about the concept of creating a certification
    process for expert witnesses. I'd be interested in what all of you
    think about the feasability of this idea. We would have to begin by
    organizing ourselves into an entity which might be called The American
    Board of Medical Expert Witnesses. A committee would need to be
    appointed to determine what the criteria for certification would be.
    Once that's in place, we'd need to apply to the ABMS (American Board
    of Medical Specialties) for board status. Our existence would need to
    be publicized so that those who wished to achieve "board
    certification" could submit applications. Such applications would need
    to be accompanied by a fee which would establish an account to cover
    the various organizational expenses. Once a critical mass of certified
    experts exists, it will become feasible for us to create a directory
    for attorneys to employ when selecting expert consultants. Juries
    would be informed about the certification status (or lack thereof) of
    a testifying expert. Most critically, there would become standards of
    behavior which can be enforced by the implied threat of various levels
    of discipline, up to and including expulsion and loss of
    certification. One can only imagine how a jury would respond to
    finding out that: 1. the expert testifying is or is not certified, and/
    or 2. he or she has been subject to discipline possibly including
    decertification. Clearly, this is a major undertaking and would likely
    be vigorously opposed by those with a stake in the status quo. I put
    it forward as simply an idea for our various members to consider. Your
    input is welcome. Happy Holidays to all!
    David Priver, MD
     
    --
     
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    To post to this group, send email to fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony?hl=en.
     
     
     
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    To post to this group, send email to fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony?hl=en.
     
    "Mayer, Dan" <May...@mail.amc.edu> Dec 24 08:59AM -0500 ^
     
    Hi all,
     
    A very happy holiday season to all, and I hope that the new year will bring a lot of good to more people than the last.
     
    It seems to me that there are two levels of certification regarding expert witnesses. The first is the certification to be a specialist of the same or comparable specialty as the physician being sued. This is regulated by a myriad of state laws and some are more strict or lax than others. Having a uniform definition with judicial discretion to rule in special cases that are not clearly related to a single specialty would solve this problem.
     
    The second level is who is allowed to be an expert. It seems as if some of the specialty organizations have taken this on by having review panels to evaluate individual practitioner's testimony but only if a complaint is registered. As I have said in previous emails to this group, I believe that this process is stacked against the plaintiff and powerless if the physician being complained against is not a member of the organization. However, these organizations could be the ideal vehicle for this 'certification' if they could come up with a system that would certify physician experts that was separate from the other functions of the organization. Perhaps a sub-group of the organization which would be dedicated to certification of expert witnesses and education of the organization's members in the principles of risk management.
     
    Finally, there is the idea of a separate "board" or certifying agency that David suggested. I assume that you mean that membership would be "required" as a condition of being able to be certified by the courts as an expert. Such an organization would have to be completely disconnected from any other professional medical organization, but could be a provider of risk management or medical-legal continuing education, but not the "...become a better or more dangerous expert ". The organization would also be a vehicle for evaluating the quality of medical expert testimony and could be 'hired' by the courts to do this.
     
    I would be against the idea of having experts certified by a board for expertise in experting. Sorry about that sentence, but I am afraid that David's suggestion of board certification in experting would become that. We don't want to remove the human element in the legal process, we just want to make sure that the testimony given is accurate scientifically.
     
    Thanks for listening,
     
    Best wishes,
     
    Dan
     
     
     
    From: fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com [mailto:fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of missde...@aol.com
    Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 8:04 AM
    To: fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com
    Subject: Re: Expert witness certification
     
    I agree, this should be pursued. R. DePersio
     
     
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Gen...@aol.com
    To: fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com
    Sent: Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:15 pm
    Subject: Re: Expert witness certification
    GREAT IDEA.I doubt ABMS would take up the challenge, but perhaps the Amer Acad of Physican Specialists. (AAPS)
     
    In a message dated 12/23/2009 3:11:47 P.M. Central Standard Time, dpriv...@gmail.com writes:
    We all share a desire to seek ways to reform the medical expert
    witness arena such that the discipline can become more dependably
    honest and accountable. We have not communicated as an affinity group
    in many months as there does not appear to be any new ideas as to how
    to achieve this goal. For this reason, I would like to submit a
    concept which is by no means new, but which may be worthy of
    discussion. I'm thinking about the concept of creating a certification
    process for expert witnesses. I'd be interested in what all of you
    think about the feasability of this idea. We would have to begin by
    organizing ourselves into an entity which might be called The American
    Board of Medical Expert Witnesses. A committee would need to be
    appointed to determine what the criteria for certification would be.
    Once that's in place, we'd need to apply to the ABMS (American Board
    of Medical Specialties) for board status. Our existence would need to
    be publicized so that those who wished to achieve "board
    certification" could submit applications. Such applications would need
    to be accompanied by a fee which would establish an account to cover
    the various organizational expenses. Once a critical mass of certified
    experts exists, it will become feasible for us to create a directory
    for attorneys to employ when selecting expert consultants. Juries
    would be informed about the certification status (or lack thereof) of
    a testifying expert. Most critically, there would become standards of
    behavior which can be enforced by the implied threat of various levels
    of discipline, up to and including expulsion and loss of
    certification. One can only imagine how a jury would respond to
    finding out that: 1. the expert testifying is or is not certified, and/
    or 2. he or she has been subject to discipline possibly including
    decertification. Clearly, this is a major undertaking and would likely
    be vigorously opposed by those with a stake in the status quo. I put
    it forward as simply an idea for our various members to consider. Your
    input is welcome. Happy Holidays to all!
    David Priver, MD
     
    --
     
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    To post to this group, send email to fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony?hl=en.
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    To post to this group, send email to fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony?hl=en.
     
    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    To post to this group, send email to fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony?hl=en.
     
     
     
    -----------------------------------------
    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain
    confidential information that is protected by law and is for the
    sole use of the individuals or entities to which it is addressed.
    If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by
    replying to this email and destroying all copies of the
    communication and attachments. Further use, disclosure, copying,
    distribution of, or reliance upon the contents of this email and
    attachments is strictly prohibited. To contact Albany Medical
    Center, or for a copy of our privacy practices, please visit us on
    the Internet at www.amc.edu.
     
    dpriver <dpriv...@gmail.com> Dec 24 08:53AM -0800 ^
     
    Dan raises some important points which would need to be addressed if
    this concept is to go forward. As always, the devil is in the details.
    I don't think I'm far enough along in this process to begin to focus
    on exactly what such an agency would certify beyond just the general
    concepts of qualification, honesty, and some sort of ongoing quality
    analysis. I'm glad to see some specialty societies, such as my own
    ACOG going ahead with expert discipline. There are, however, some
    problems here. Courts are permitting those being peer reviewed to sue
    those who file grievances, as they apparently don't see expert
    testimony as being the practice of medicine. As Arnie points out, we
    might have problems with ABMS as there is "curriculum" involved. I
    think it would be hopelessly complicated to have certification
    separately for each specialty, although we would certainly need
    consultants from each so as to determine what standards of care exist.
    Let's keep this discussion moving and see if a kernel of a project can
    be germinated here.(As an OB/GYN I had to use some reproductive
    verbiage; I'm sure you understand).
    David
     
     
    "Arnold Cohen" <Coh...@einstein.edu> Dec 24 11:57AM -0500 ^
     
    For those who have not seen this, this is ACOG's ethical witness form.
    I am not sure if it has any real power but in a deposition they will
    ask if we have signed it.
    As Dave said, societies are now being sued, and I believe one has lost,
    in this area because of restraint of trade issues.
     
    Arnie

    Remember- Every pregnant woman needs to be immunized against the Flu
    and H1N1 Flu.
    Also-Wash your hands
     
    Arnold W. Cohen, MD
    Chairman
    Department of Ob/Gyn
    Albert Einstein Medical Center
    215-456-6993
    coh...@einstein.edu
     
     
    >>> dpriver <dpriv...@gmail.com> 12/24/2009 11:53 AM >>>
    Dan raises some important points which would need to be addressed if
    this concept is to go forward. As always, the devil is in the details.
    I don't think I'm far enough along in this process to begin to focus
    on exactly what such an agency would certify beyond just the general
    concepts of qualification, honesty, and some sort of ongoing quality
    analysis. I'm glad to see some specialty societies, such as my own
    ACOG going ahead with expert discipline. There are, however, some
    problems here. Courts are permitting those being peer reviewed to sue
    those who file grievances, as they apparently don't see expert
    testimony as being the practice of medicine. As Arnie points out, we
    might have problems with ABMS as there is "curriculum" involved. I
    think it would be hopelessly complicated to have certification
    separately for each specialty, although we would certainly need
    consultants from each so as to determine what standards of care exist.
    Let's keep this discussion moving and see if a kernel of a project can
    be germinated here.(As an OB/GYN I had to use some reproductive
    verbiage; I'm sure you understand).
    David
     
    On Dec 24, 5:59�am, "Mayer, Dan" <May...@mail.amc.edu> wrote:
    > Hi all,
     
    > A very happy holiday season to all, and I hope that the new year will
    bring a lot of good to more people than the last.
     
    > It seems to me that there are two levels of certification regarding
    expert witnesses. �The first is the certification to be a specialist of
    the same or comparable specialty as the physician being sued. �This is
    regulated by a myriad of state laws and some are more strict or lax than
    others. �Having a uniform definition with judicial discretion to rule in
    special cases that are not clearly related to a single specialty would
    solve this problem.
     
    > The second level is who is allowed to be an expert. �It seems as if
    some of the specialty organizations have taken this on by having review
    panels to evaluate individual practitioner's testimony but only if a
    complaint is registered. �As I have said in previous emails to this
    group, I believe that this process is stacked against the plaintiff and
    powerless if the physician being complained against is not a member of
    the organization. �However, these organizations could be the ideal
    vehicle for this 'certification' if they could come up with a system
    that would certify physician experts that was separate from the other
    functions of the organization. Perhaps a sub-group of the organization
    which would be dedicated to certification of expert witnesses and
    education of the organization's members in the principles of risk
    management.
     
    > Finally, there is the idea of a separate "board" or certifying agency
    that David suggested. �I assume that you mean that membership would be
    "required" as a condition of being able to be certified by the courts as
    an expert. �Such an organization would have to be completely
    disconnected from any other professional medical organization, but could
    be a provider of risk management or medical-legal continuing education,
    but not the "...become a better or more dangerous expert ". �The
    organization would also be a vehicle for evaluating the quality of
    medical expert testimony and could be 'hired' by the courts to do this.
     
    > I would be against the idea of having experts certified by a board
    for expertise in experting. �Sorry about that sentence, but I am afraid
    that David's suggestion of board certification in experting would become
    that. �We don't want to remove the human element in the legal process,
    we just want to make sure that the testimony given is accurate
    scientifically.
     
    > Best wishes,
     
    > Dan
     
    > From: fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com
    [mailto:fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com]
    On Behalf Of missdeper...@aol.com
    > Sent: Wed, Dec 23, 2009 5:15 pm
    > Subject: Re: Expert witness certification
     
    > GREAT IDEA.I doubt ABMS would take up the challenge, but perhaps the
    Amer Acad of Physican Specialists. (AAPS)
     
    > In a message dated 12/23/2009 3:11:47 P.M. Central Standard Time,
    dprivers...@gmail.com writes:
    > We all share a desire to seek ways to reform the medical expert
    > witness arena such that the discipline can become more dependably
    > honest and accountable. We have not communicated as an affinity
    group
    > in many months as there does not appear to be any new ideas as to
    how
    > to achieve this goal. For this reason, I would like to submit a
    > concept which is by no means new, but which may be worthy of
    > discussion. I'm thinking about the concept of creating a
    certification
    > process for expert witnesses. I'd be interested in what all of you
    > think about the feasability of this idea. We would have to begin by
    > organizing ourselves into an entity which might be called The
    American
    > appointed to determine what the criteria for certification would be.
    > Once that's in place, we'd need to apply to the ABMS (American Board
    > of Medical Specialties) for board status. Our existence would need
    to
    > be publicized so that those who wished to achieve "board
    > certification" could submit applications. Such applications would
    need
    > to be accompanied by a fee which would establish an account to cover
    > the various organizational expenses. Once a critical mass of
    certified
    > experts exists, it will become feasible for us to create a directory
    > for attorneys to employ when selecting expert consultants. Juries
    > would be informed about the certification status (or lack thereof)
    of
    > a testifying expert. Most critically, there would become standards
    of
    > behavior which can be enforced by the implied threat of various
    levels
    > of discipline, up to and including expulsion and loss of
    > certification. One can only imagine how a jury would respond to
    > finding out that: 1. the expert testifying is or is not certified,
    and/
    > or 2. he or she has been subject to discipline possibly including
    > decertification. Clearly, this is a major undertaking and would
    likely
    > be vigorously opposed by those with a stake in the status quo. I put
    > it forward as simply an idea for our various members to consider.
    Your
    > David Priver, MD
     
    > --
     
    > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    > To post to this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    > For more options, visit this group
    athttp://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-test....
     
    > --
    > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    > To post to this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    > For more options, visit this group
    athttp://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-test....
     
    > --
    > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    > To post to this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    > For more options, visit this group
    athttp://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-test....
    > Center, or for a copy of our privacy practices, please visit us on
    > the Internet atwww.amc.edu.- Hide quoted text -
     
    > - Show quoted text -
     
    --
     
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
    Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
    To post to this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony?hl=en.
     
     
     
     
    This message is intended for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential, the disclosure of which is governed by applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately to arrange for return or destruction of these documents.
     

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Fellowship for Accurate Courtroom Testimony (FACT)" group.
To post to this group, send email to fellowship-for-accura...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to fellowship-for-accurate-cou...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fellowship-for-accurate-courtroom-testimony?hl=en.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages