Personal Injury Law

Trial Lawyers - Evidence Based Medicine

By Steve Lombardi

We've heard all about the necessity of expert witnesses using evidence based medicine to formulate opinions in law suits. Of course many of us have not bought into "evidence based medicine" as the cure for what some characterize as "fairer judicial decisions". We've been around too long and heard it previously suggested that the jury system needs to be fixed by those with a financial interest in the outcome of trials.

The New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 358:252-260, January 17, 2008, Number 3) astutely points out the fallacy that can exist behind this testimonial concept. If the evidence base is complete and unbiased the theory is that evidence based medicine as a concept works. I'm not buying any of it. What this concept does is simply create one more hurdle for common people to obtain a fair trial to obtain adequate compensation for injuries caused by the medical and pharmaceutical industries. The two most effective weapons against unfair trial results remain. They are common sense and cross examination.

Trial lawyers and Judges should not be fooled into believing the doctors know more about trial work and the rules of evidence. They don't and this evidence based medicine concept is nothing more than an old trick to fool us into one more attempt at intellectualization of what should be a common sense approach to society's decision making process. There is nothing wrong with the jury system or lay people making difficult decisions. As my father once said to me, "Never try to bullshit a bullshitter." In the wrong hands evidence based medicine is a sham.

Full post as published by Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer on March 20, 2008 (boomark / email).