In a medical malpractice case in New York, after the injured victim’s lawyer has made his opening remarks, does the defense attorney necessarily have to give his opening remarks? The answer is no. The defense attorney need not provide his opening remarks after the plaintiff’s lawyer has done so.
New York residents might have heard that on Dec. 12, a Florida court ruled to uphold a suit of negligence against the Holmes Regional Medical Center for failing to remove a recalled drug and prescribing it to a patient. The hospital had appealed the negligence lawsuit, which was filed by the injured patient and his wife, but the request was denied by a panel of three judges from the 5th District Court of Appeals.
You hire a medical malpractice attorney based on his past results, and you firmly believe that this attorney could never lose your case at trial. However, this line of thinking on your part is quite flawed. Many lawyers tell potential clients that they have sterling results in the past, and even show them a list of cases that they had won, and huge settlements that they were able to obtain for their clients.
Here is a scenario where the doctor has failed to diagnose lung cancer in a timely manner. After filing a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff’s lawyer has a chance to question the doctor during a pre-trail question and answer session known as a deposition. The lawyer will try to focus on key areas by asking how the treatment would have been different if the lung cancer was diagnosed earlier in time.
There will be instances when your lawyer could voluntarily expose a key weakness in your medical malpractice case in his opening arguments. This may sound quite shocking to you, since you would have thought your lawyer will start building a strong foundation for your case right from the start. Willingly presenting a weakness to the jury in the opening arguments might not seem right.
In a medical malpractice case it is critical to explain to the jury, what were the expected standards of care in the treatment how were these standards violated, and why such violation made a difference? For instance, you may have consulted a doctor for some health issue, and after receiving treatment from the doctor, you end up with an injury rather than getting back on track and getting your health back. You would want to know, whether the doctor has violated the basic standards of care that caused you harm.
If the plaintiff’s attorney catches a witness in a lie at a medical malpractice deposition or at a trial, should he make a bid deal about it at that time or should he wait? There are different ways to address the issue of witness lying on the stand or at deposition. Several tactics and strategies are there to maximize the effect of witness lying during pretrial testimony or at the time of trial.
Premature separation of the placenta, also known as placental abruption occurs when the placenta either partially or fully separates from the uterus prior to the baby’s birth. There are few direct causes, and they include injury to the abdomen or a sudden loss of a large quantity of uterine fluid, such as occurs after the birth of the first twin in a multiple birth.
Did you know that before a medical malpractice trial can actually start the judge would want the two lawyers to stipulate to a set of facts that are already agreed to? In every single case, a certain set of facts are clearly agreed to. For instance, in a medical malpractice case, the two sides will agree when the incident in question took place, where it took place, and so on. Hence, there are certain facts that are clearly agreed to and stipulated.
Sometimes an aggressive line of cross-examination by the plaintiff’s attorney could backfire in a medical malpractice case. At trial, when the lawyer is cross-examining the doctor or a medical expert of the defense aggressively, it might backfire and harm the case if the lawyer is considering to be badgering the witness. However, if the doctor is combative, repeatedly refuses to answer the questions in simple yes or no, and fights with the attorney for every little word and semantics, then an aggressive cross-examination may not backfire.
