1 The Adverse Direct Examination of a Defendant Doctor in a Medical Malpractice Case By Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan There is no better way to prove medical malpractice than through the mouths of the defendant physicians themselves. Although they may never specifically admit that they departed from accepted standards of medical practice, a skillfully pointed adverse direct examination can leave no doubt as to their culpability. Although it does take some courage to begin a case with an adverse witness, it is almost always the best way to proceed for any number of reasons. First, it is very dramatic. Second, because you can lead the doctor as an adverse party, you are controlling precisely the content and tempo of his testimony 1. Next, you can teach the jury the anatomy, medicine and standards of care through the very person who injured your client and violated those very standards. Finally, by having the defendants testify prior to your expert, the defense cannot put a spin on the defendants testimony to rebut your expert s opinion on the facts, issues and medical departures. Because you are going to make your case through a witness who wants to do nothing less than destroy it, you must be in total control of the examination, from beginning to end. Needless to say, to exercise total control, every question has to be a leading question. A leading question, of course, is one which suggests the answer, contains within it the answer, or calls for a yes or no answer. When dealing with an 1The right to ask leading questions of an adverse witness on direct examination is well established: An adverse witness may be cross-examined, and leading questions may be put to him by the party calling him, for the very sensible and sufficient reason that he is adverse and that the danger arising from such a mode of examination by a party calling a friendly or unbiased witness does not exist Becker v. Koch, 104 N.Y. 394 (1887).
2 adverse physician, however, it is best to always suggest the answer, and ask for the witness assent. Let s take a simple fact pattern where a young woman gets paralyzed during an epidural steroid injection in her neck. The case is brought against the neuroradiologist for wrongly diagnosing a herniated disc rather than a discitis or infection of the disc or spine, the treating neurosurgeon for missing the signs of the infection and misreading the MRI studies as well, and the pain management physician who paralyzed the client with his injection: Q: Dr. McCann, in the past, you have actually treated Valerie Smith, correct? Q: You were her neurosurgeon, true? Q: You treated her long before March 29 th of 2006, true? Q: But on March 29 th, 2006, you had to operate on her, correct? Q: And that was because, after an epidural injection in her neck, she couldn t move her arms or legs, true? Q: And you came to an opinion, first of all, that she was paralyzed, true? Q: And that she was now a quadriplegic, right? Q: And you also came to the opinion, at that very time of the surgery, that it was the epidural injection administered an hour before your surgery that caused her paralysis, true? If the witness is inconsistent or uncooperative, use your impeachment materials: medical reports, office charts and deposition transcripts. So, assuming the doctor is inconsistent with his prior testimony, impeach him with his deposition transcript: Q. Prior to surgery, you came to an opinion that it was the epidural steroid injection that caused the quadriplegia in Valerie Smith, true?
3 A: True. Q: No question about that, correct? A: Correct. Q: And that opinion, before the surgery, was based upon looking at the MRI s of her cervical spine, true? A: True. Q: And nothing that you saw in surgery changed your opinion that it was the epidural steroid injection that caused her paralysis, true? A: Not true. And it is not that simple. Q: But, Sir, you thought it was that simple on June 21, 2007, correct? Q: That is when you previously testified in this case, right? Q: At what is known as a deposition, true? Q: At that time, you were with your lawyer, true? Q: You raised your right hand, and swore that the testimony you were about to give was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, true? Q: And your testimony was truthful, wasn t it? Q: And you were asked the following questions, and gave the following answers, page 29, line 2: Question, Prior to the surgery, did you have an opinion as to the cause of the paralysis? Answer, Yes, the epidural steroid injection. Question, After the surgery, did your opinion change? Answer, no. Next question, Question So your opinion was, both before and after surgery that the cause of the paralysis was the epidural steroid injection? Answer, Yes. Q: You were asked those questions sir, under oath? Q: You gave those answers, true?
4 Q: You d agree that they were different than your answers today? Q: Correct me if I m wrong sir, but prior to testifying and I m not going to ask you what you spoke about but you did speak to your lawyer, true? Q: And it was after that time, that your answers changed?. Be careful when using a deposition to impeach the adverse physician. Do not impeach on an unimportant point; do not impeach unless the inconsistency is clear; and do not impeach without specific reference to the page numbers, line numbers, date and place of the deposition, by reading the transcript verbatim beginning each question by actually saying Question, and each answer by actually saying Answer. Otherwise, you will draw a valid objection from your adversary (or interruption from the court reporter) which will interfere with the flow of your examination. Even when defendants share a unified defense, when the medicine is on your side, you can use leading questions to enhance the claim against a co-defendant. For example, if you want the operating surgeon who reviewed the pre-surgical MRI s to implicate the doctor who performed the injection, you can go after him this way: 2 Q: Sir, prior to the surgery, you reviewed the MRI films, true? Q: You did that with the radiologist in real time, sitting at the computer? true? Q: Not only that, the radiologist rendered a report of his reading of the MRI, 2Carvalho v. New Rochelle Hosp., 53 A.D.2d 635 (2d Dept. 1976) and its progeny, which stand for the proposition that defendants may not be required to opine about the care rendered by a co-defendant at deposition, have been held inapplicable at trial (see Giventer v. Rementeria, 181 Misc.2d 582). The rationale is clear: the purpose of Carvalho is to prevent plaintiffs from suing doctors merely to obtain a free expert opinion against a co-defendant at deposition. This danger disappears at trial, and should not serve to impair the rules of evidence which permit broad and probing cross-examination of a defendant.
5 Q: And that MRI, which is part of the hospital record in evidence said as follows: There is subarachnoid air consistent with air piercing the cord, true? Q: And that means air from the needle got into the meninges, or one of the three layers of the outside of the spinal cord, true? Q: No question about that, right? Q: So that the needle wielded by Dr. Riser - your co-defendant, put air right into the subarachnoid space, true? Q: And it was at that very time, Valerie became paralyzed, right? Needless to say, surgeons try to avoid opining on MRI s and CT scans in court as being outside of their expertise. However, this position is a silly one in light of the fact that they constantly read these films in practice before, during and after surgery. Instead of letting the clinician say he is not a board certified radiologist and therefore uncomfortable giving an expert opinion on them in court, make him first admit that he is, in fact, qualified to read them. Here, the set-up becomes just as important is the substantive cross-examination. Establish that there is not a spinal surgeon in the world who would perform surgery on a patient without looking at the actual scans. And lay a foundation for the clinician s expertise in reviewing films: Q: Sir, you are a board certified neurosurgeon, true? Q: You were boarded over ten years ago, right? Q: And you have been operating on spines for many years, haven t you? Q: And certainly prior to deciding whether a patient needs spinal surgery, you refer the patient for an MRI, true?
6 Q: In the old days, the radiologist would write a report and send it back to you with the actual films, correct? Q: Films that you would personally review, right? Q: You would read the report and look at the actual films, true? Q: Now you can access your radiologist s pac system and review the films and the report remotely, correct? Q: Because before you open up a patient s spine, you want to see the pathology for yourself, correct? Q: And even though you are not a neuroradiologist, or even a radiologist, you review the actual films before operating, don t you? Q: As a matter of fact, that is the standard of care for a spinal surgeon, true? Q: In fact, you would never operate or even decide to operate without looking at the films first, true? Q: It would be wrong to do that, wouldn t it? Q: It would be below the standard of care for a clinician to do surgery of the spine without first looking at the actual MRI films, right? Q: Sir, you ve done thousand of surgeries, true? Q: And it would be safe to say that before each of those surgeries you looked at the actual films, true? Q: Not only that, you put the films up on your light box and showed my client specifically where you believed the pathology was, didn t you? Q: When you did that you didn t offer the patient a disclaimer, did you? Q: And you didn t say to her, I m not a board certified radiologist, so disregard what I m telling you is on these films, did you? Now confront him with the actual films and establish that he misread them and therefore directed the wrong treatment for the patient:
7 Q: Doctor, I m showing you what are known as sagittal images of the cervical spine, correct? Q: By sagittal, we mean lateral or side images, true? Q: With cuts starting on the outer edge of the body coming into the midline of the spinal column, then back out to the outer edge of the body, right? Q: And you diagnosed an acute herniated disc at C5-C6, true? right? Q: But you d agree sir that Valerie was 60 years old at the time of this scan, Q: And these are T2 weighted images, aren t they? Q: Which means that things with high-water content like cerebrospinal fluid and healthy disc material should be bright in color, or white, or high in signal or hyperintense, true? Q: Yet her discs at C3-C4, C4-C5 and C6-C7 are hypo-intense, true? Q: Meaning low in signal, right? Q: Or dark in color right? Q Which is not surprising in a 60-year-old woman, true? Q: That darkness is from what is known as dessication, or dehydration or loss of water, correct? Q: Because as we age, our discs dehydrate or lose water, don t they? Q: Yet the disc that is causing her pain is bright in signal true? Q: It is white in color, correct? Q: It lights up, doesn t it? Q: Doctor, you would expect someone with a long history of degenerative disc disease like Valerie has to have a dark, degenerated, dessicated, dehydrated disc, wouldn t you?
8 Q: Yet this disc is white, bright and hyper-intense, isn t it? Q: Because it does have fluid content, right? Q: But not water, true? Q: Because every other disc is dessicated due to drying up from aging, right? Q: That fluid is pus, isn t it? Q: From an infected disc, true? Q: And you now know that because you operated on her, removed the disc, sent it to pathology and determined it was, in fact, pus, true? Q: And you would agree with me that an epidural steroid injection is contraindicated in the face of an infection, isn t it? Q: Yet you sent my client for that steroid injection, didn t you? Q: The injection that rendered her paralyzed, true? To make a prima facie case of medical malpractice, you need expert testimony outlining the departures from accepted standards of medical practice with causation of injury. To win the case, however, you have to beat the defendant doctors on their own turf. Rather than waiting for your adversary s case to confront the defendant doctors on cross-examination where your adversary can put forward his client in the best light and then tailor the testimony to fall outside of your expert s opinion it is far better to call the defendants and prove your case through them. Then, by the time your expert testifies, the jury already knows the medicine, the standard of care and the departures. With a thorough knowledge of the medicine and radiological studies, and total control of the witnesses through the use of leading questions and impeachment materials, a decisive victory awaits.
9 Ben Rubinowitz is a partner at Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz. He also is an Adjunct Professor of Law teaching trial practice at Hofstra University School of Law and Cardozo Law School. GairGair.com; Evan Torgan is a member of the firm Torgan & Cooper, P.C. TorganCooper.com; Richard Steigman, a partner at Gair, Gair, Conason, Steigman, Mackauf, Bloom & Rubinowitz, assisted in the preparation of this article.
Trying a Labor Law Case with a Sole Proximate Cause Defense By Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan Although Labor Law Section 240 was designed to protect workers, making owners and general contractors strictly
The Trial of a Soft Tissue Knee Injury Case By Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan Although often overlooked as commonplace or insignificant, an injury to the knee joint often results in a severe, permanent
New York Law Journal Wednesday, July 31, 2002 HEADLINE: BYLINE: Trial Advocacy, Cross-Examination: The Basics Ben B. Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan BODY: Cross-examination involves relatively straightforward
EXPOSING AN EXPERT WITNESS BIAS DURING CROSS-EXAMINATION: COLLATERAL ATTACK By Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan When preparing for a cross-examination, the skilled litigator must always first determine his
Videotaping IMEs: a Corollary to Defense Surveillance By: Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan In personal injury cases, the defense bar has long employed the use of covert video surveillance of plaintiffs engaged
10 Devastating Mistakes That Can Destroy Your California Accident Case And What To Do About Them. Copyright 2012 by Glenn S. Guenard & B. Ross Bozarth All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used
Know your rights concerning Medical Malpractice Forward This book explains many of your rights if you are injured by medical malpractice and is not a substitute for good personal legal advice from an attorney
Free Legal Consumer Guide Series Brought To You By Meeting All Your Legal Needs for 50 Years 2 What Is Medical Malpractice? HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE If you read this guide, you will discover what you need
Page 1 of 7 Ben Brodhead on proving causation and damages in spinal fusion cases. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend Proving Causation and Damages in Spinal Fusion Cases By: Ben C.
THE CONSUMER S GUIDE TO CAR ACCIDENT CLAIMS IN NOVA SCOTIA Why Most Nova Scotia Car Accident Victims Don t Receive Fair Compensation John A. McKiggan Arnold Pizzo McKiggan 306-5670 Spring Garden Road Halifax,
Trying a Wrongful Death Case: Voir Dire as a Bridge to Summation By: Ben Rubinowitz and Evan Torgan Damages in a wrongful death case are fraught with complex issues and legal challenges. While it is easy
Free Legal Consumer Guide Series Brought To You By Meeting All Your Legal Needs For 50 Years 2 Everything You Need To Know About Car Accident Cases HOW TO USE THIS GUIDE If you read this guide, you will
Written Especially for Doctors and their Patients 14 Ways to Guarantee That Your Long-Term Disability Insurance Claim is Denied and You Lose In Court (Avoid them and you may have a shot at winning your
79 Wall Street Huntington, NY 11743 800.660.1466 631.425.9775 718.220.0099 631.415.5004 (fax) A Consumer Guide What is a Deposition and How Does It Work in a Personal Injury Case? A key component in many
How to Win Your Injury Case By Brian Beckcom Table of Contents Disclaimer What It Means to Win (or Lose) Your Case How to Get the Most Out of This Book The Ten Most- Asked Questions Ten Questions People
TRIAL MASTERS PROGRAM THE ART OF CROSS EXAMINATION By Sandra F. Clark 1 MehaffyWeber, P.C. Beaumont/Houston, Texas Vincent Bogliosi once noted: A jury remembers the tune and not the words. Juries constantly
LITIGATING THE AUTO PERSONAL INJURY CASE The Plaintiff s Perspective: From Beginning to End By: DOUGLASS F. NOLAND NOLAND LAW FIRM, LLC 34 WESTWOODS DRIVE LIBERTY, MISSOURI 64068 816-781-5055 / FAX 816-781-5216
Workers Comp Survival Kit 100 Frequently Asked Questions TABLE OF CONTENTS OXNER + PERMAR... 4 CAN I CALL AND JUST ASK YOU A QUESTION?... 4 HOW DO I HIRE OXNER + PERMAR AND WHAT DOES IT COST?... 4 WHAT
MEDICAL MALPRACTICE & INJURY LAW in New York Everything you need to know about Medical Malpractice and Injury Law in New Yorkbefore you walk into a lawyer's office By Gerry Oginski, Esq. The Law Office
THE HOGG & GARTLAN LAW FIRM PERSONAL INJURY AND ACCIDENT REPORT BY AARON GARTLAN 0 No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services
Teen Court Attorney s Handbook 13 th Judicial Circuit Hillsborough County, Florida 2013-2014 1 OVERVIEW OF TEEN COURT AND TRIALS Thank you for your participation in Teen court and in the Teen Court trial
Disclaimer This book is educational information only. This is not legal advice. ANY CASE RESULTS INCLUDED IN THIS BOOK ARE BASED ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THOSE CASES. PAST RESULTS DO NOT PREDICT FUTURE
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-1179 VIENNA HURT VERSUS WILLIAM J. BARROIS ********** APPEAL FROM THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 932707 HONORABLE KRISTIAN