Replies

"..some doctors who practice in hospitals and others who "practice" in the courtroom. ...I suspect the latter are often given considerable credibility even when they deserve none, while the former are often given little crediblity even when they deserve much."

I agree. This is where preparation by the lawyers is crucial. It would appear that Dr. Walker didn't do his homework or the lawyers didn't. MS's on the other hand did.

There was a claim by the parents lawyer that they didn't know about the bone scan, yet MS's lawyer demonstrated that they did. This kind of false or incorrect accusation makes the parents lawyers look inept and my guess probbably ticked the judge off some?

I agree. This is where preparation by the lawyers is crucial. It would appear that Dr. Walker didn't do his homework or the lawyers didn't. MS's on the other hand did.

I thought there were restrictions on lawyers talking with witnesses outside the presence of opposing attourneys. Not that such things don't happen anyway, of course, but I thought one was required to at least give notice of one's meeting and allow the other lawyer to attend. I don't think the Schindlers would have been able to afford having their lawyer at every meeting between Felos and his 'witnesses", but I suspect Felos would have made it a point to be represented (personally or by staff) at every meeting between the Schindlers and theirs.

There was a claim by the parents lawyer that they didn't know about the bone scan, yet MS's lawyer demonstrated that they did. This kind of false or incorrect accusation makes the parents lawyers look inept and my guess probbably ticked the judge off some?

How did MS demonstrate that?

I have read the entire deposition. The Doctor was very clear in his statement that "if" a trauma was the cause of the injuries - they could not have been older than 12 - 18 months.

He also "admitted" that it would be typical to advance "alternative" possibilities so that the attending physician can make a sound decision.

It was not his role to make a diagnosis, nor to determine cause. Instead, to interpret what the images show and make a report of those findings.

Earlier, you stated that the Doctor did not sign the report & that he did not know who did. This is partially true. The report itself is unsigned. It is initialed as reviewed by another doctor.

Furthermore, the statements of the two doctors regarding the "fractures" are out of context. The first claimed he saw "no evidence of fracture" (or words to that effect). This much is true. However, that statement is in regards to one of Terri's ARMS. The other referred to one of her knees. Neither one of them addresses the spinal compression fracture.

Just out of curiosity - were the two attending physicians / the other radiologists (??) deposed / otherwise give testimony? I ask because the "defense" exhibits where all affidavits, meaning there was no "cross examination" of them before this deposition was taken.

All of the above is simply for "completeness". I would truly be interested if you had any links for further reading.