![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
apharAbout 6 weeks ago I served on a jury in a civil case (6 days!)
There were 8 of us (6 primary and 2 alternates, I was number 4).
The case was about medical damages for two persons (the driver and the front seat passenger) being rear-ended by a cab while standing at a red light.
Half way through the driver settled, and the passenger settled right before the closing arguments, so we did not have an opportunity to discuss the case.
Two episodes from the trial are of general interest (IMO).
All 4(!) expert witnesses (2 for the defense, 2 for the plaintiffs) were asked what was the "Diagnostic Gold Standard" for orthopedics, and 3 of them (surgeons) said laparoscopic surgery. The 3rd, a diagnostic radiologist, said that 20-30 years ago, when those 3 surgeons went to school, this was true, but not now. Now the gold standard is MRI and proceeded to show scans of the patient's shoulder and knee in 3 directions, moving planes &c &c.
The picture is worth a 1k words, so, if the surgeons have shown us the videos from their surgeries, I might have been more skeptical, but, for now, I believe in MRI more.
Part of the argument centered on the loss of movement in the passenger's right shoulder - inability to raise the arm much above the shoulder. The plaintiffs claimed it was a result of the accident, and defense, naturally, claimed that it was age-related arthritis.
What stunned me was that the defense attorney did not ask about the other (left) arm and the treating physician did not volunteer that information either!
Only the defense expert witness (who, according to the plaintiffs, spent a meager 5 minutes examining the patient) mentioned the left arm as an important issue (and the loss of movement in the left arm was comparable to that of the right one).
I have little expectation of the attorneys' understanding of the scientific method, but the treating physician withholding information about the other arm - that was a clear case of scientific misconduct.
The US justice system is adversarial (as opposed to the inquisitorial in some other places), i.e., only the parties (plaitif and defense) can question witnesses, not the judge (who merely ensures that the rules are followed) and not the jury (who will have to decide who won).
The only way for me to question a witness was to submit the question in writing to the judge during the recess (the jury is barred from direct contact with the judge and the counsels) and, if the judge is so inclined, he will pass the question on to the witness.
There were 8 of us (6 primary and 2 alternates, I was number 4).
The case was about medical damages for two persons (the driver and the front seat passenger) being rear-ended by a cab while standing at a red light.
Half way through the driver settled, and the passenger settled right before the closing arguments, so we did not have an opportunity to discuss the case.
Two episodes from the trial are of general interest (IMO).
Diagnostic Gold Standard
All 4(!) expert witnesses (2 for the defense, 2 for the plaintiffs) were asked what was the "Diagnostic Gold Standard" for orthopedics, and 3 of them (surgeons) said laparoscopic surgery. The 3rd, a diagnostic radiologist, said that 20-30 years ago, when those 3 surgeons went to school, this was true, but not now. Now the gold standard is MRI and proceeded to show scans of the patient's shoulder and knee in 3 directions, moving planes &c &c.
The picture is worth a 1k words, so, if the surgeons have shown us the videos from their surgeries, I might have been more skeptical, but, for now, I believe in MRI more.
What about the other arm?!
Part of the argument centered on the loss of movement in the passenger's right shoulder - inability to raise the arm much above the shoulder. The plaintiffs claimed it was a result of the accident, and defense, naturally, claimed that it was age-related arthritis.
What stunned me was that the defense attorney did not ask about the other (left) arm and the treating physician did not volunteer that information either!
Only the defense expert witness (who, according to the plaintiffs, spent a meager 5 minutes examining the patient) mentioned the left arm as an important issue (and the loss of movement in the left arm was comparable to that of the right one).
I have little expectation of the attorneys' understanding of the scientific method, but the treating physician withholding information about the other arm - that was a clear case of scientific misconduct.
For those unfamiliar with the US Justice system
The US justice system is adversarial (as opposed to the inquisitorial in some other places), i.e., only the parties (plaitif and defense) can question witnesses, not the judge (who merely ensures that the rules are followed) and not the jury (who will have to decide who won).
The only way for me to question a witness was to submit the question in writing to the judge during the recess (the jury is barred from direct contact with the judge and the counsels) and, if the judge is so inclined, he will pass the question on to the witness.
