1. Cross check: one question one question
The only way to keep the doctor under control during a cross-examination is to ask questions with a single fact that requires a yes or no answer. You are in the form of questions. The facts in your questions should stand on their own and not depend on any information that the witness has in his head. When setting aside a defender there are a lot of facts. Here are some sources to pull facts to answer your leading questions. Defense doctors report the medical records of the plaintiff, the discharge of the doctor in your case, the testimony that the doctor gave in other cases, in journal articles written by a medical defender.
2. Summarize important assumptions with leading questions.
Many times a medical doctor admits several things on deposit that help your client. We all need to confirm these facts with leading cross-examination questions. For example, in most cases, medical doctors recognize that a traumatic event can lead to trauma that is suitable for treatment by physiotherapy under medical supervision or chiropractic help within six weeks after the injury. Confirm the amount of bills that he or she agrees on, the collision was the main factor causing it.
When precipitating, ask the advocate to assume that your patient was in pain after the injury and that the patients complained of pain during different periods after the event, similar to what your client had experienced. Most medical doctors recognize that a certain segment of the population is prone to injury and that priority injury can make people more susceptible to more damage from a later injury. Here are a few questions to try to put on a medical doctor. These are not cross exam questions for the court.
Q. Agree that some people are more fragile than others?
Q. Do you agree that fragile people are often prone to more injury or pain from a traumatic event?
Q. Do people experience pain in different ways?
Q. Some people have a higher pain threshold than others?
Q. Is there a direct way to measure pain?
Doctors understand that the human body can be “cured”, but they can still have pain. The advocate can use the work “healed” to mean that the body has achieved maximum health improvement in architecture. Some medical doctors recognize that symptoms, such as pain, continue long after the body is “healed.” Focus on the symptoms, not on injuries or healing.
3. If the defender file is not full ...
Often, defender files may be incomplete. They may not have all previous medical records, and more often than not, medical doctors will not look at the images of radiology themselves. As a rule, their review will be based on a written report from the radiologist who interpreted the images. This is a good opportunity to indicate where the defense doctor received his information. Go through with the doctor of defense as he got the records of the spots. Ask: “All the records you received were provided by a lawyer, the right doctor? Confirm that the defender did not provide an image of the Stainiff spell from her X-ray, MRI or CT scan. independently before deciding whether or not to perform the operation.
Remember that this question applies with equal force to the causative agents of complaints and the clarification of medical services. Beware, contact doctors who are not aware of important medical records, or information about previous injuries is just as unacceptable for such a cross-examination.
4. Some symptoms have improved: did you believe my client when she said that her heads were gone?
Watch out for symptoms or pain so that the plaintiff does more. For example, for the wounded, there are often several places of pain, some of which are resolved, only to stay with one or two chronic conditions that significantly affect their lives. If so, you can use the following cross-examination.
Question: Mrs. Jones said her headaches were gone?
Oh yeah.
Question: Mrs. Jones said back pain was gone?
Oh yeah.
Question: Did you consider Miss Jones when she said that her headaches disappeared?
Oh. I did.
Question: Did you believe that Miss Jones said that her back pain was gone?
Oh. I did.
Q. She was honest with you about it.
A. Yes, she was.
Q. She had complaints in any other part of her body when you looked at her?
Oh. Well, yes, she said that her neck still hurts?
Q. Did you believe her when she said that her neck still hurt?
A. Well, no, or yes, I did it. [Either answer is good here.]
Q. [If they Say no.] You do not indicate anywhere in your report that you did not believe her, right?
Question: Did you specify Miss Jones as a simulator in your report?
A. No.
5. Show that the lawyer is more familiar with the law firms in the city than the names of the people he protested in court.
You may be able to point out the cross-examination that the medical doctor is very familiar with the names of defensive law firms that refer to him for defensive medical exams, but are less familiar with all the people with whom he tested. The testimony of doctors shows how familiar doctors are with the names of simpler companies who send him cases. Ask which firms send it to the most protective medical examinations. If he says he does not remember, indicate the names of some firms that, as you know, have sent their business. He will remember some.
Q. Do you know the law firm of Smith, Jones and Johnson?
Oh yeah.
Q. Do you know the law firm Levi & Louis?
Oh yeah.
Q. Is it the law firms that brought you the business?
Oh yeah.
Question: Doctor, do you know Javier Martinez?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Tom Jones?
A. No.
Q. Do you know James Lee?
A. No.
Q. Do you know Sally Smith?
A. No.
[Make sure you get real names from real people, and have the old reports ready to back it up.]
Q. You know about the law firms I asked you about, right?
Q. Do you know the names of any of the people you tested in the High Court?
Q. Do you remember that any of you did?
Q. You have no responsibility for these people?
Q. Do you care about them as your doctor?
Q. You do not belong to them?
Q. You don't need to worry about them at all.
Q. Do you just need to prepare a report saying that they did not suffer?
Q. Do you just need to prepare a report for the law firm that hired you?
6. Doctor, do you have a private patient, for which you are responsible?
Many medical doctors still have a few private patients whom they see. Here are a number of questions that reveal this absurdity that everyone is getting better at the same speed, all within six weeks, all with a short course of physical therapy and some home exercises.
Q. Doctor. Do you have a private patient, for which you are responsible?
Oh yeah.
Q. Some of them will suffer from accidents?
Oh yeah.
Q. Are some of them sore swinging a golf club?
Oh yeah.
Q. Playing tennis?
Oh yeah.
Q. Are you running down the street?
Oh yeah.
Q. Care to curb
Oh yeah.
Q. Bending through a shaving rack?
Oh yeah.
B. Changing the diaper for a child?
Oh yeah.
Q. Any consequences for any of these accidents?
A. No.
Q. Any property damage?
A. No.
Question: Do you ask for photos of golf clubs, baseball bats or tennis missiles?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any photos inside your personal patients?
A. No.
Question have you ever cared for those who have ever suffered from a car accident
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Have any of them had neck injuries?
A. Yes, some of them.
Q. Have any of them had a back injury?
A. Some of them.
Q. Do you really treat them for that?
Oh yeah.
B. Some of them get better immediately.
Oh yeah.
Question: Have you ever heard of a chronic word?
Oh yeah.
Q. What does this mean?
A. It means something for a long and long time.
Q. Over the years, have any of your patients had problems with a chronic back?
A. I am sure there were several of them.
Q. Do any of them have chronic neck problems?
A. Looks like it will happen.
Q. Well, if they say they still hurt, do you still care about them?
Oh yeah.
Q. Do you send some of them for MRI, PT or pain treatment?
Oh yeah.
Q. My client told you the truth. Her head is getting better, her neck is getting better, and her back is not better?
Q. And she got into a car accident, like some of your private patients.
Oh yeah.
Question: Don't you think that a doctor might suffer from this accident?
A. [There is not a lot he can say.]
7. Do you have a doctor for any photographs of the damage to the vehicle in any of your personal patient records?
Here are a number of questions pointing to the absurdity of making a medical diagnosis on assessing damage from property or photographs of car bumpers. As a rule, you can get these techniques while setting aside a doctor. Many physicians admit during sedimentation that there is a slight correlation between the amount of damage caused to damage to a vehicle.
Q. Did you receive a copy of the repair estimate in this case?
A. No.
Q. Did you put a copy of the repair estimate in the file of the plaintiff?
A. No.
Question: Have you ever asked any of your own patients to evaluate repair in a body shop?
A. No.
Q. Don't you just ask your patients if they suffered?
Oh yeah.
Q. Do you not listen to their subjective symptoms?
Oh yeah.
Q. Are not their complaints about the best tool with which you should diagnose your problems?
Oh yeah.
Q. Do you have photos of the wing or bumper in any of your personal files?
A. No.
Question: Have you ever made a diagnosis of all the bases of the spine in a photo of a bumper?
A. No.
This is a good refutation of general protection in a low impact situation that simply uses your “common sense”. The test, which begins with a big picture of the bumper and refrain, "uses your common sense." We need to turn around and say: “Yes, use your common sense. Jury members, when you want to know why your back hurts, do you look at your golf club, your tennis racket or bumper? and you will tell your doctor. "
The jurors are not trying to understand whether their backs are hurting based on the formula of physics, they cannot understand. Think: “Has anyone in this room ever climbed onto a black board to find out their wounds?”
8. Create leading questions with facts taken from medical records.
We must take a few pointers from lawyers from their cross-examination of the plaintiffs. The best cross-examinations of the injured claimant use leading questions with facts taken from subjective complaints raised from medical records. A similar strategy can be used in the cross-examination of the defender. Here is a string of leading questions using facts taken from medical records.
Question: Have you reviewed the medical records of Ms. Smith, Dr. Jones, the attending physician?
Oh yeah.
Question: Do you know that on May 1, Miss Smith informed Dr. Jones that her thumb was numb?
Oh yeah.
Q. Again, on May 15, did she say that her thumb was numb?
Oh yeah.
Q. And this right finger numbness was documented by Dr. Jones in her chart on the same day, May 15th.
Oh yeah.
Q. Again, on May 22, Ms. Smith reported to Dr. Jones that her thumb was numb?
Oh yeah.
Q. And again this symptom of numbness of the right thumb was registered by Dr. Jones on May 22.
Oh yeah.
B. These facts are documented in Ms. Smith’s medical reports.
Oh yeah.
Q. You do not dispute the truth of these facts?
A. No.
9. Limit the defender who wants to testify about the simulation.
Medical doctors often testify on matters for which they simply do not have the qualifications to testify. Common is evidence of simulation or secondary gain. If the doctor begins to declare that the client is deficient or is sponsoring a secondary payoff, ask them to recognize that these are diagnoses under DSM IV or DSM IV-R. Keep a copy of the DSM criteria for the malingerer and ask the doctor to tell you what they are. Usually they can not. Ask them to admit that they do not have a psychology license, that they do not practice as psychologists or psychiatrists, and they refer their patients to psychology / psychiatry specialists if they consider that they need such treatment. This indicates that they are not licensed in this area and, therefore, are not qualified to provide evidence on these subjects. Ask them to admit that they do not present a psychological examination, a psychosocial history, and / or do not conduct a battery of psychological tests, such as MMPI or MMCI. This shows that they have no reason to provide evidence regarding psychological diagnosis. Remember that your deposition is the same, which limits the amount of testimony, because it knows what kind of testimony it is. Submit a move in the limit to exclude this evidence.
Conclusion:
When preparing for the cross-examination of the medical doctor, it should be remembered that each case is unique. Trying to use the cross-screening techniques for corn, many do not serve you well. Practice your cross-screening in your collections and friends. Ask them to read the DME report and deposit and see how well your leading questions work. Does each question really stand on its own and require an answer “yes” or “no”? Do each of your main questions require facts, not characteristics or opinions? After your preparation is complete, remember that the jury expected the colleague to take several appeals from a lawyer during the direct exam. Your task is not to worsen the situation on the cross. Take a few moments using the powerful leading question tool and sit down. Remember the words of Voltaire: "Perfection is the enemy of good."
