Don’t be surprised if soon there’s a supply chain shortage of expert witnesses for medical malpractice and other healthcare lawsuits.

如果医疗事故和其他医疗诉讼的专家证人很快出现供应链短缺，也不要感到惊讶。

The scarcity would come from an upswing in demand that coincides with a limited supply of allowable experts, who are constrained by a decades-old standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court.

这种稀缺性将来自需求的上升，而与此同时，允许的专家数量有限，他们受到美国最高法院制定的数十年标准的限制。

On the demand side of the equation, from 2013 to 2023, malpractice verdicts of $10 million or more rose by more than two-thirds (67.7%), according to data from reinsurance company TransRe, as reported on Medscape.

据Medscape报道，在需求方面，根据再保险公司TransRe的数据，从2013年到2023年，1000万美元或更多的医疗事故判决增加了三分之二（67.7%）以上。

Consumer / Employer

消费者/雇主

Health Benefit Consultants, Share Your Expert Insights in Our Survey

健康福利顾问，在我们的调查中分享您的专家见解

By

签字人

MedCity News

MedCity新闻

More than half those verdicts were for $25 million or more.

超过一半的判决是2500万美元或更多。

In a 2023 example, a Pennsylvania jury awarded $183 million in damages against the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania for a child who suffered cerebral palsy, allegedly from a delayed cesarean section.

在2023年的一个例子中，宾夕法尼亚州陪审团裁定宾夕法尼亚大学医院赔偿1.83亿美元的赔偿金，赔偿一名据称因延迟剖宫产而患脑瘫的儿童。

And in New York, a jury rendered a $120 million verdict against Westchester Medical Center in a failure to timely diagnose and treat a stroke victim.

在纽约，由于未能及时诊断和治疗中风患者，陪审团对Westchester医疗中心做出了1.2亿美元的裁决。

Also from 2023 is the record $261 million verdict a Florida jury granted last year to a family accusing Johns Hopkins All Children’s Hospital in St. Petersburg of medical negligence and false imprisonment.

同样从2023年起，佛罗里达州陪审团去年对一个家庭作出了创纪录的2.61亿美元的裁决，指控圣彼得堡约翰·霍普金斯儿童医院的医疗疏忽和非法监禁。

sponsored content

推广内容

A Deep-dive Into Specialty Pharma

深入研究专业制药

A specialty drug is a class of prescription medications used to treat complex, chronic or rare medical conditions. Although this classification was originally intended to define the treatment of rare, also termed “orphan” diseases, affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the US, more recently, specialty drugs have emerged as the cornerstone of treatment for chronic and complex diseases such as cancer, autoimmune conditions, diabetes, hepatitis C, and HIV/AIDS. .

特种药物是一类用于治疗复杂、慢性或罕见疾病的处方药。虽然这种分类最初是为了定义罕见的，也称为“孤儿”疾病的治疗方法，在美国影响不到20万人，但最近，特种药物已成为治疗慢性和复杂疾病的基石，如癌症，自身免疫性疾病，糖尿病，丙型肝炎和艾滋病毒/艾滋病。

By

签字人

PurpleLab

PurpleLab

Accordingly, the demand for the best expert witnesses will likely swell along with burgeoning awards. Which brings us to the supply side.

因此，对最佳专家证人的需求可能会随着奖项的增加而增加。这就把我们带到了供应方。

Enter three decades of after-shocks from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993). In Daubert, a mother alleged that a nausea medicine for morning sickness caused birth defects to her newborn.

进入Daubert v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals，Inc.（1993）的三十年余震。在道伯特，一位母亲声称，一种治疗晨吐的恶心药导致了她的新生儿出生缺陷。

Because the mother’s evidence was based on emerging research, the Daubert court in essence revised FRE (Federal Rules of Evidence) Rule 702, to include five clarifying factors, such as whether the pending expert testimony is justly supported by peer review, publication, and known error rate.

由于母亲的证据是基于新兴研究，道伯特法院实质上修订了FRE（联邦证据规则）规则702，包括五个澄清因素，例如未决专家证词是否得到同行评审，出版和已知错误率的合理支持。

The Court’s intent was to bar so-called junk science from testimony, notably in speculative, contingency-fee civil cases clogging the courts. But critics have since decried the test as unfairly handicapping individual plaintiffs and favoring deep-pocket defendants such as pharmaceutical companies and medical device makers..

法院的意图是禁止所谓的垃圾科学作证，特别是在充斥法庭的投机性、意外费用民事案件中。但此后，批评人士谴责该测试不公平地妨碍了原告个人，并偏袒了制药公司和医疗器械制造商等囊中羞涩的被告。。

The upshot is that judges are thrust into the role of scientific arbiters, for which they generally lack the expertise. Additionally, critics say, in criminal cases, the standard favors prosecutors because judges are often veteran prosecutors and thus are more likely to admit prosecutorial than defense witnesses..

结果是，法官被迫扮演科学仲裁者的角色，而他们通常缺乏专业知识。此外，批评人士表示，在刑事案件中，该标准有利于检察官，因为法官通常是经验丰富的检察官，因此比辩方证人更有可能接受检察官。。

Among other criticisms is the reality that attorneys may make a Daubert motion to the court solely as a witness harassment technique and delaying tactic. Moreover, a Daubert hearing incurs additional time and costs, unfairly saddling less affluent parties going up against well-heeled adversaries and their large law firms..

在其他批评中，律师可能仅作为骚扰证人的手段和拖延战术而向法院提出Daubert动议。此外，Daubert听证会会带来额外的时间和成本，不公平地让较不富裕的政党与富有的对手及其大型律师事务所对抗。。

It’s well accepted that healthcare lawsuits generally boil down to a battle of the experts, usually scientists and physicians. As jury awards rise, the value – and expense to litigants – of the most distinguished and credible authorities are certain to follow.

众所周知，医疗保健诉讼通常归结为专家之间的斗争，通常是科学家和医生之间的斗争。随着陪审团裁决的增加，最杰出和最可信的权威机构的价值和费用肯定会随之而来。

Editor’s Note: This article first appeared in the Healthcare Docket newsletter. Click here to subscribe and read the full newsletter.

编者按：本文首次出现在医疗保健摘要新闻稿中。单击此处订阅并阅读完整的新闻稿。

Photo: Gearstd, Getty Images

照片：Gearstd，Getty Images

Topics

主题

medical malpractice

医疗事故

MedCity News Daily Newsletter

MedCity新闻每日通讯

Sign up and get the latest news in your inbox.

注册并在收件箱中获取最新消息。

Enter your email address

输入您的电子邮件地址

Subscribe Now

立即订阅

We will never sell or share your information without your consent. See our privacy policy.

未经您同意，我们绝不出售或共享您的信息。请参阅我们的隐私政策。