Never allow a doctor to wiggle away from his own conduct, leaving others to fight for him. You must ask him this question: "You have had several years to ponder this question and I know you are concerned about the outcome of this trial. If you were faced with a patient today with the exact same set of symptoms that the plaintiff had [x number of] years ago when he presented himself to you, would you do anything differently than you did then with regard to the diagnosis and treatment of the patient?" Remember if you dig your defense guns deeply into the ground to protect them from German aircraft, you can't move them. You are stuck with your decision.

Remember, medical defendants are like the brave Russians defending their homeland. To them, any defense is alright. The Russians used slave labor to build massive defense berms around Kursk. They used force battalions, which were soldiers who literally stood behind the regular army and forced them to attack and not retreat. If a regular soldier retreated, he was killed by the force battalion! Force battalions were a fixture in the Russian Army. In a medical case, win-at-any-cost tactics include getting nurses to lie and cover up for doctors. _______________________

Fetal monitoring tapes disappear. "Late" entries appear in medical records -- out of sequence. Partners shade the truth. The hospital pathologist will always side with the hospital first and doctor second, regardless of scientific evidence. Fake science appears as mainstream knowledge because it was mentioned in the medical literature. "The lacerated esophagus was caused by the patient's own coughing, really it was, because it was identified in the medical literature years ago." It's okay, reason the defenders to use specious and even nearfraudulent arguments -- after all, look at the good that we do ... look at all the frivolous cases ... look at ...

You must learn not only the standard of care, but must learn the standard defenses for this medical condition or procedure and have a clear plan to overcome these defenses. The best way to do this is to find other cases involving the same condition/procedure. Order a computer search from a jury verdict publisher and be sure to ask for defense verdicts!² Too many good trial lawyers think only about providing the breach, etc., and ignore defenses. Where do you think the term "land mines" comes from in jury consulting? Think Kursk.

Never assume jurors will use common sense regarding defenses. They can't. Nobody can when emotions dominate. Jurors have an emotional bond with the doctor and sometimes even the hospital. Jurors will always blame the patient (victim) in order to relieve their own stress and support their world view. They literally make up facts to hurt the patient. Jurors are constantly thinking these thoughts:

"This would never happen to me because..."

"It's really no big deal..."

"It was really her fault..."

"She should have gotten a second opinion."