What do you think of this "expert" testimony?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
And no, Ive never done plaintiffs work. Defense in the one case I've been involved in.
Members don't see this ad.
 
FoughtFyr said:
No, it is because you have no credibility if you only work defense. Pay is generally the same.
Click to expand...

Interesting. That makes sense, though intuitively it always seemed like defendants would have a stronger interest in paying out the high rates commanded by prominent expert witnesses for testimony at trial, but I guess if plaintiff's attorneys make a percentage cut of any winnings when they take cases without up-front fees, and they thought their chances were good or they might get awarded costs of litigating the case, they have reason to pay for them too.

How does one go about getting involved in medicolegal work after residency? Is it something that people in academic practice are often propositioned to do, or does one have to go out there and prospectively solicit business?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
S1Q3T3 has a specificity of 50%, maybe, but we need to look at positive predictive value not specificity. In this case you might argue he had a low pre-test probability so the PPV was low. If PPV was 50% I think you'd be hard pressed NOT to scan the kid or at least do a d-dimer.
 
leviathan said:
S1Q3T3 has a specificity of 50%, maybe, but we need to look at positive predictive value not specificity. In this case you might argue he had a low pre-test probability so the PPV was low. If PPV was 50% I think you'd be hard pressed NOT to scan the kid or at least do a d-dimer.
Click to expand...
The maker quoted by the "expert" was Q3T3, not "S1Q3T3."
 
Oops. Sorry. Bumped this thread again. Must be my keyboard Tourette's syndrome.

Aw shucks...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
leviathan said:
S1Q3T3 has a specificity of 50%, maybe, but we need to look at positive predictive value not specificity. In this case you might argue he had a low pre-test probability so the PPV was low. If PPV was 50% I think you'd be hard pressed NOT to scan the kid or at least do a d-dimer.
Click to expand...

Do you have a source for that? I feel like I see S1Q3T3 on an EKG at least once a month, if not more often. I have never seen S1Q3T3 in the presence of a PTE...
 
A few things:
He had surgery so you can't PERC him. As much as I hate to admit it, I think standard of care is a d-dimer. Not a CTPA like Rosen suggests. He's still low risk given Well's criteria only gives 1.5 pts for recent surgery. Last time I checked 1.5 is < 2. Clearly he doesn't get 3 pts for clinical gestault given that he went home.

Either way, not Gross Negligence. If it were Gross Negligence, ie one that a layperson would recognize, then what the hell were the parents doing for 2 weeks while the PE was propagating?! (of course I realize that it's not a good legal strategy to blame the parents of a dead 15 year old...)

Isolated Q3T3 is meaningless. seriously, count how many of these you see during your next shift. They are ALWAYS inverted because of lead placement. Watch your nurses place leads. play around with it yourself. You can fix or create all sorts of pathology with lead placement.

Similar to the orange ekg book being famously written by a pedophile, one could easily publicize his Dinosaur-minded misrepresentations of the merits of using a Q3T3 on an EKG to diagnose PE as well as his selling out his peers as a plaintiff's expert witness on Amazon.com reviews of his books. BTW, there are only 25 reviews. lots of people read these. way more than an online forum or blog.

Birdstrike -- You never gave a price/hr for this sort of case. What's your guess? I've heard $500/hr, but a big name like him ought to bring in a lot more, I would think. How much?
 
Anyone have any references for lists of cases that plaintiff's have won? Seems like a good thing to have some familiarity with while for charting purposes.
 
BAM! said:
Birdstrike -- You never gave a price/hr for this sort of case. What's your guess? I've heard $500/hr, but a big name like him ought to bring in a lot more, I would think. How much?
Click to expand...
I think your number is probably close.
 
BoardingDoc said:
Birdstrike likes bumping this post every so often so that it goes back to the front page. At this point, it's gradually becoming a little less about the absurdity of the case and a little more of the "I hate Peter Rosen" show.
Click to expand...

I disavow any so called "hate" of which you speak. The hate is all yours. You can have it.

But as far as this thread goes: You just don't understand. You don't have the ability to even understand if you wanted to. But you will. Someday, my friend, you will.
 
Apollyon said:
OK, that's just weird, dude. You post cryptic **** in a drive by fashion, then don't follow up. Whatever is this "breaking news" (which doesn't seem to be), either put up, or shut up.
Click to expand...

Patience, my friend. Patience...
 
I hear Rosen has public censure coming for this testimony. Besides throwing ED doc under bus, the worse impact was lowering the standard of care of "gross negligence" that I'm sure GA ACEP and AMA tried years to get. Now if a paid "expert" says your "grossly negligent", then apparently you are, case-law and meaning be damned. Another reason why I'll always be on Team- Tintinalli...
 
ACEP ISSUES PUBLIC CENSURE

The Board of Directors of ACEP issued on June 22, 2016 a public censure of Peter Rosen, MD, FACEP, for violation of ACEP’s Expert Witness Guidelines for the Specialty of Emergency Medicine and the Code of Ethics for Emergency Physicians.

Procedures for Addressing Charges of Ethical Violations and Other Misconduct

ACEP has a process for reviewing complaints of ethical violations or other misconduct. The complete process can be found online at www.acep.org/ethicalcomplaints. The following is a summary of procedures:

A complaint of ethical violations or other misconduct may be initiated by an ACEP member, chapter, committee, or section.
The ACEP Executive Director reviews the complaihttp://www.acepnow.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=10703&action=editnt and determines whether it is frivolous or refers it for review by the Bylaws and/or Ethics Committees or subcommittees, or refers it to be more appropriately addressed through judicial or administrative avenues.
The respondent is provided with a copy of the complaint, along with any attachments, and given 30 days to respond along with evidence in his or her defense.
The Committees, or their subcommittees, will consider whether the alleged action violates ACEP Bylaws or the Code of Ethics, which includes ACEP’s Expert Witness Guidelines. If they determine that a violation has occurred, they will then consider whether the alleged conduct warrants private censure, public censure, suspension, or expulsion from ACEP.
The Board of Directors then receives the recommendation of the appropriate committee, the complaint and response, and at a meeting of the Board, votes to determine whether disciplinary action is warranted. The respondent is notified of the decision and may either request a hearing or accept the Board’s decision.
At the hearing, the complainant and respondent each may be represented by counsel or any other person of their choice. The Board will then render a decision based on the hearing and provide written notice of its decision, along with its basis, to the respondent.
Possible Disciplinary Actions

Censure
Private Censure: A private letter of censure informs a member that his or her conduct does not conform with the College’s ethical standards; the contents are not disclosed, but the fact that such a letter has been issued will be disclosed.
Public Censure: A public letter of censure shall detail the manner in which the censured member has been found to violate the College’s ethical standards.
Suspension from ACEP membership shall be for a period of 12 months, after which the suspended member can be reinstated.
Expulsion from ACEP membership shall be for a period of 5 years, after which the expelled member may petition for readmission to membership.
ACEP Now - http://www.acepnow.com/article/acep-issues-public-censure/
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

G
Medical expert rates
Replies
42
Views
3K
Backpack234
B
pkwraith
Croup fatality malpratice case aka the scourge of bad EM expert witnesses
2 3 4 5
Replies
223
Views
9K
PianoMedic
PianoMedic
wareagle726
Tox Case...I think
Replies
42
Views
3K
gutonc
gutonc
J
Chris Kang doesn't think there are too many residencies
Replies
47
Views
3K
BoardingDoc
BoardingDoc
P
  • Locked
What do you think of these "minimum requirements" to get into the Baylor EM Residency?
2
Replies
86
Views
7K
southerndoc
southerndoc
Top