A
three-judge panel in in Florida's Third District Court of Appeals recently
stopped a $4.1 million judgment and ordered a fresh trial. The defendant in the
event, a Florida pediatrician, argued he was refused a fair trial since expert
witnesses and their testimony were improperly applied during trial.
The
plaintiff was treated by the physician until 2006 from her birth in 2000. In
this six-year period, the parents claim that she endured a kidney condition
that the doctor did not identify or treat. According to the parents, physician
didn't acknowledge or follow up on elevated levels of protein within urine
samples which suggested a serious kidney disorder. The girl ultimately needed a
kidney transplant and her parents were awarded $4.1 million in a subsequent medical
malpractice lawsuit.
The
physician appealed the verdict, claiming inappropriate usage of expert
witnesses by the plaintiff’s lawyer. The initial judge in the lawsuit had ruled
that both sides were limited to one expert per specialty. Prior to the case being
concluded, however, that judge retired.
The subsequent judge did not hold the plaintiff’s lawyer to that ruling.
The plaintiff’s attorney called four expert witnesses to testify and also
misrepresented that expert testimony in closing arguments.
The
Third District Court of Appeals said the improper utilization of medical experts
and their testimony required a new trial in this instance and agreed with the
defendant’s arguments concerning his denial of a fair trial.
Attorneys
must follow guidelines regarding expert witness characterization in their
testimony and presentation of expert witnesses. Failing to follow these rules
can result in unfair trials and delays in settlements for many who have
suffered damage.
No comments:
Post a Comment