A doctor telling a patient their first doctor screwed up is the most common reason for a suit. Pretty self explanatory.
Never been muzzled giving a second opinion.
Getting proof from a malpractice attorney is turning things upside down. you start with the conclusion that negligence has occurred and work back to prove it the best you can. They are not interested in the truth. And you know that.
Yes, it IS self-explanatory. It is also why that second doctor has a STRONG disincentive from offering any opinion. Why engage in activity most commonly resulting in a suit? If he DOES take the consult, he has a strong incentive to say the first doctor was right.
Despite your accusation, I did not make anything up. Perhaps you need some rest.
In a case like this, there is no question of there being injury to mfreddy's son. It's a question of liability.
It's safe to assume that the attorney reviewing the case has obtained all of the medical records to establish if there is liabiilty on the part of the hospital or doctors or other staff. Just because there is damage doesn't establish liabiilty.
A good lawyer won't sue without having established from the records that there is liability. That is not to say that there aren't lawyers who, not finding liability, will sue anyway and try to shake down the hospital and/or doctors.
The idea of medical expert witnesses is to have someone credentialed look at the records and come up with an opinion of what happened and to see if the hospital and doctors performed within the professional 'standards of care.' Doctors do screw up frequently enough, but they're also not really gods, and sometimes "stuff" happens. The medical expert witness in a law suit is not typically a treating physician who's rendered a second opinion.
And, I grant, there are plenty of doctors who will qualify as "expert witnesses" and say absolutely anything the paying lawyer wants him or her to say. That doctor would be countered by an equally credentialed expert from the other side. Then, if it goes to court, it's for a jury to decide.
Maybe I work for the one in a million lawyer, but he's turned down cases that at first blush appeared to be potentially large medical malpractice cases. After having an independent medical consultant review every last page of the medical records, repeatedly if need be, he's had to tell the grieving parents that they didn't have a cause of action. (the 'stuff happens' syndrome). There are doctors and lawyers who DO care about the truth and are not in it exclusively for the fees or for winning at all costs.