Many on the forum know that in forensic cases it's imperative to complete a conflict check before agreeing to take a case. Basically, it's no good to get retained in a case where you know the parties involved or have some other potential bias. I was contact about a malpractice case recently by plaintiff attorney. I do not know the defendant physicians, but it involves a major health system that spans are large geographic region. My residency hospital was actually purchased by this health system during my PGY4 year many years ago. I don't hold any allegiance with this system, don't work for them, and the case involves one of their hospitals nearly 6 hours away. However, with the changing landscape of physician jobs, it's possible this system could be a potential employer in the future. Has anyone ever run into issues where a health system would not hire some who served as an expert witness against them in a malpractice case?
Expert witness conflict check-large health system
- Thread starter nexus73
- Start date
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 6,891
I doubt Big Box shops are so large as to keep a file just for all the expert witness testimony people whom they won't hire in the future.
And on the off rare chance some one were to bring it up, meh, your testimony and professionalism is standard across all venues - a strength - and reason why you should employ me.
And on the off rare chance some one were to bring it up, meh, your testimony and professionalism is standard across all venues - a strength - and reason why you should employ me.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
- Messages
- 8,026
- Reaction score
- 4,164
No but I've seen lawyers refuse to take up cases cause the case was against a major employer in the area. Further I was in a case where the lawyer refused to allow certain testimony they didn't find diplomatic with that institution cause they sometimes have dealings with them.
Now of course some of you will point out this is unethical and even illegal behavior on the part of the lawyers, but did I see it happen? Yes. Anyone thinking everyone follows the rules is living in naiveté.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2002
- Messages
- 2,943
- Reaction score
- 3,016
@Sushirolls is exactly right. This is generally a commonly misunderstood aspect of expert witness work. When you are hired as an expert, in a trial or otherwise, and are paid by the hour to render an opinion that's unrelated to the outcome of the opinion, you CHIEF goal is to maintain the neutrality and professional validity of that opinion with the utmost professional integrity. Whether the lawyers PICK you for the trial, whether the trial is happening, whether it will eventually go in favor of the plaintiff or defendant, NONE OF THAT IS YOUR PROBLEM. If your opinion is influenced by the outcome, then you are not an expert. You are a salesman on commission.
Same thing as when you are hired as an expert for ANY OTHER type of consulting work, for companies, systems, investors, etc. UNLESS you are paid by equity, your objective is to render a neutral, unbiased opinion and provide expertise to render a decision. It's not to sway the decision-making influence one way or the other, especially with regard to any decision that might have an appearance of conflict of interest. This general principle holds regardless of actual conflict of interest, which can be *managed* in some cases.
The only situation when you are in fact an expert that is hired to sell is when your consultant contract is either in fact (i.e. you are paid on commission/contingent on the outcome) or in stated intent (i.e. you are written down to work to lobby).
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2010
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 6,891
Was it really that they didn't want to work against those entities or that they had actually work for them in the past and were on the conflict checker list? The majority of law offices I've reached out to over the years are typically like pause/wait, we need to review our client lists for conflicts first.
Where I used to live, the large health system was like a frequent gravy train for one firm. A lawyer there made some gentle comments reflecting how they continue to create business. The Big Box shop is so overburdened by things, they can't even service them all with their in house counsel, and will refer out to other firms.
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2009
- Messages
- 4,292
- Reaction score
- 9,715
If you think there is a remote possibility you might want to work for the system in the near future you should not accept the case. That means it is too close to home. Don’t shït where you eat. In general, it is best not to do plaintiff malpractice cases in your own locality.
- Joined
- Feb 15, 2009
- Messages
- 18,970
- Reaction score
- 26,160
If you're private practice, not really a big deal. Though, attorneys don't generally hire Board Certified neuropsychs in our area for plaintiff work. There are a few unboarded folks who will write whatever they want in a report, so they generally go that way. Aside from some larger national work that is all plaintiff, probably only done a few plaintiff cases, vast majority of work is defense based.
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2004
- Messages
- 8,026
- Reaction score
- 4,164
Both.
Some of this could be local. There's a major health provider in the area-BJC and Washington U, and this is where the conflict occurred. They're a major provider of several potential legal cases.
Add to that, where I did residency, Atlanticare, was one of the major employers in Southern NJ. Almost no lawyer wanted to do anything that was against Atlanticare, even if there was a valid case against them.
I can mention the specific entities because these aren't the lawyers' names being mentioned who did unethical activity.
