Medical Malpractice Lawyers Knowledge Base

Important Articles on Medical Malpractice and other relevant legal issues written by ABPLA Board Certified Medical Malpractice Lawyers

Medical Malpractice Articles by Chris Searcy ABPLA Board Certified Medical Malpractice Lawyer

MAKING THE COMPLEX CASE SIMPLE THROUGH EXPERT TESTIMONY

I.        INTRODUCTION

II.      UNIQUE PROBLEMS OF PROOF IN COMPLEX CASES

A.      Jurors do not understand the applicable terminology.

B.      Jurors have no education or training in the subject matter.

C.      Jurors have no practical experience with the subject matter.

D.      Jurors cannot appreciate the significance of the factual testimony until they understand the terminology and have received the benefit of some education training and experience in the subject matter involved.

III.    SOLUTION TO THE UNIQUE PROBLEMS IN COMPLEX CASES

A.      Begin your order of proof with an expert.

B.      Be prepared to have that expert teach the jury everything you needed to learn or any lay person would need to learn in order to understand the case as if they had been educated, trained and experienced in the subject matter.

C.      Format for testimony of “teaching” expert:

1.       Definition of area of expertise.

2.       Qualifications in area of expertise.

3.       Technical definitions.

4.       Pseudo-legal definitions.

5.       Description of materials reviewed and steps taken for expert to familiarize himself with the case.

6.       Standards applicable to the case within expert’s field.

7.       Purpose of the applicable standards.

8.       Breach of applicable standards.

9.       Causation of damage from breach of applicable standards (this will usually directly correlate with purpose for standards).

D.      Factual Witnesses.

E.       Experts on ultimate issues established by factual witnesses.

IV.    APPLICABLE FLORIDA AUTHORITY UNDER COMMON LAW AND EVIDENCE CODE

A.      Applicable cannon law principles:

1.       29 Am. Jur. Evidence Sec. 888; 31 Am. Jur. Expert and Opinion Evidence Sec. 66.

2.       Volumes 116 and 136 of the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers Journal; Williams v.State, 45 Fla. 128, 34 So. 279 (1903); Pensacola Electric Company V. Bissett, 59 Fla. 360, 52 So. 367 (1910); Escambia Electric Light & Power Co. v. Sutherland, 61 Fla. 167, 55 So. 83 (1911); Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association v. Bunting, 133 Fla. 446, 183 So. 321 (1938).

3.       Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Shouse, 83 Fla. 156, 91 So. 90 (1922); Ecker v. National Roofing of Miami, Inc., 210 So.2d 586 (Fla. 3rd DCA, 1957).

4.       Appropriate matters for expert opinion:

a.       Mauldin v. Reel, 56 So.2d 918 (Fla. 1951).

b.       Interpretation of and computations from books of account. Scott V. Caldwell, 160 Fla. 861, 37 So.2d 85 (1948).

c.       Matters of agricultural knowledge. Wicoma Investment Co. v. Pridgeon, 137 Fla. 540, 188 So. 597 (1939).

d.       Speed of a moving object. 78 ALR 540, Kerr v Caraway, 78 So.2d 571 (Fla. 1955); 135 ALR 1404; International Sales-Rental Leasing Co. v. Nearhoof, 251 So. 2d 349 (3^rd DCA Fla. 1971); Seibels, Bruce & Co. v. Giddings, 264 So. 2d 103 (3rd DCA F1a. 1972).

e.       Ballistics and powder burns. Reiner v. State, 128 Fla. 848, 176 So. 38 (Fla. 1937).

f.        Physical condition, cause of injury, or death. Lemon v. State, 55 So.2d 556 (Fla. 1951); Williamson v. State, 92 Fla. 1094, 111 So. 245 (1926); Guyton v. State, 80 Fla. 621, 86 So. 618 (1920); 13 Fla. Jur. Evidence, Section 324.

g.       Sanity or mental capacity of person whose mental condition is an issue. Blocker v. State, 93 Fla. 878, 110 So. 547 (1926); Britts v. State, 158 Fla. 839, 30 So.2d 363 (1947).

h.       Identity of fingerprints, footprints or bloodstains. Coca v. State, 62 So.2d 892 (Fla. 1953); Flowers v. State, 69 Fla. 620, 68 So. 754 (1915); Hodgins v. State, 139 Fla. 226, 190 So. 875 (1939).

i.        Values, costs and damages. Sullivan v. Lear, 23 Fla. 463, 2 So. 846 (1887); National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburg v. Cone, 80 Fla. 265, 85 So. 913 (1920); and 20 Am. Jur. Evidence Section 903.

j.        Value of services and earning capacity. Baruch v. Giblin, 122 Fla. 59, 164 So. 831 (1935); Tallahassee v. Ashmore, 158 Fla. 73, 27 So. 2d 660 (1946). By the way, the Ashmore case establishes that the American Experience Annuity Tables may be used by a witness in giving testimony as to the value of one’s future earning capacity.

k.       Point of impact. 66 AIR 2d 1048.

5.       Maas Brothers, Inc. v. Bishop, 204 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2nd DCA, 1967).

6.       11. ALR 3d 1249.

7.       Everett v. State, 97 So. 241 (Fla. 1957).

8.       Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co. v. Hill, 250 So.2d 311 (Fla., 4th DCA, 1971).

B.      Authority under Florida Evidence Code:

Fla. Stat. 90.701, 90.702, 90.703, 90.704, 90.705, 90.706, and 90.956.

When you choose an ABPLA board certified attorney you can rest assured that you have one of the best malpractice lawyers in the country.