> who, judges found, wrongly recommended denying mental health coverage
As a civil defense attorney that deals with doctors as expert witnesses in tort cases a lot, I read statements like this skeptically. The defense teams I’ve been on have had a measure of success convincing some judges that the plaintiffs bar’s go-to medical experts are total hacks that should be excluded from testifying, and we’ve elicited some pretty strong judicial opinions saying up front that all their science is junk. But then (and probably more often then not) other judges in other jurisdictions allow the exact same doctor to testify about the exact same science the other judge said was junk, and it helps the plaintiff win millions of dollars.
So, just because *a* judge finds that a doctor’s methods and conclusions are wrong doesn’t automatically mean that they are. I could just be one judge in one case, while a bunch of judges other judges think the opposite.
1 Comment
> who, judges found, wrongly recommended denying mental health coverage
As a civil defense attorney that deals with doctors as expert witnesses in tort cases a lot, I read statements like this skeptically. The defense teams I’ve been on have had a measure of success convincing some judges that the plaintiffs bar’s go-to medical experts are total hacks that should be excluded from testifying, and we’ve elicited some pretty strong judicial opinions saying up front that all their science is junk. But then (and probably more often then not) other judges in other jurisdictions allow the exact same doctor to testify about the exact same science the other judge said was junk, and it helps the plaintiff win millions of dollars.
So, just because *a* judge finds that a doctor’s methods and conclusions are wrong doesn’t automatically mean that they are. I could just be one judge in one case, while a bunch of judges other judges think the opposite.