It is worth noting that situations similar to those described in this birth injury case could just as easily occur at any of the healthcare facilities in the area, such as Kaiser Permanente, UC Davis Medical Center, Mercy, Methodist, or Sutter.
(Please also note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this medical malpractice action and its proceedings.)
In this case defendants deposed plaintiff’s designated pediatric neurology expert, Dr. Robert Hill on September 1, 2010. During the deposition Dr .Hill testified as to his personal opinions regarding why he has testified on behalf of plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases more often in the last five years. Essentially, Dr. Hill testified that during the first twenty to 25 years he was acting as an expert, a majority of the cases were reviewed for the defense. However, over the last 10 to 15 years, a gradual transition occurred to the point now 80 % of the cases in which he is deposed as an expert are on behalf of the plaintiff.
When asked about the reason for the transition Dr. Hill testified, There’s some reasons that are flattering to you and some that are not. I’ll give you one reason and one reason only for now, and that is, in the last 10 or 15 years, cases on behalf of families and children are far better prepared and far more meritorious, in association with very superior plaintiff lawyers than they were in the 70s, 80s, and even early 90s. So today I’m seeing plaintiff cases that have been well worked up by highly capable lawyers and the cases are very credible.
In addition, in the case of Dylan White v. XYZ Hospital, Dr. Hill was deposed as a medical expert.
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.
During that deposition Dr.Hill testified regarding the reasons he has been testifying on behalf of plaintiffs more often in the recent years. In that deposition Dr. Hill testified A chill has descended upon experts testifying on behalf of plaintiffs by medical societies, faculties and medical groups. In fact, some faculties and medical groups prohibit their doctors from testifying on behalf of the plaintiff.
Additionally, Dr Hill testified that Another explanation that I think is legitimate is when I review a case for the defense, rather than going with my analysis, even if it doesn’t assist them in a material way, they’ll simply thank me and try to find an expert that will basically assist them in whatever way possible. That was not the case in my experience with the defense bar in the 70s and 80s, even early 90s; so there’s been a shift in attitudes over the years.
Defendant seeks to preclude Dr. Hill’s testimony regarding his personal opinions as to why he has testified on behalf of plaintiffs more often in the last five years, and specifically preclude him from providing the above noted testimony or any similar testimony regarding these issues. (See Part 3 of 5.)
For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.