Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

Steps to take so that a medical malpractice lawsuit is decided from unbiased opinions

Howard Smith, MD
Physician
February 15, 2024
Share
Tweet
Share

Today, the conventional rules that medical experts use to evaluate the merits of a malpractice lawsuit are established by attorneys, not doctors. These rules are based on inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is acceptable except for one thing; it forgives threats to validity. Although the premises are true, the conclusions are influenced by bias. The rules are as follows:

There are four categories of evidence:

  • The disputed treatment represents a medical error.
  • The standard of care represents a treatment free of error.
  • Duty is the duty to do no harm and considers that, sometimes, an acceptable calculated risk is necessary.
  • The complication is either an injury or an error of nature. An injury is preventable and is caused by a medical error that produces a measurable risk of harm. An error of nature is unpreventable and is caused by circumstances under no one’s control that produce a known background risk in the population. These are all true premises.

The hypothesis is “The disputed treatment either departs from or comports with the standard of care.” Any difference between the standard of care and the disputed treatment is a departure from the standard of care. Likewise, an associated complication is an injury until proven otherwise.

Inductive reasoning compares the disputed treatment to the standard of care. Inductive reasoning does not test the hypothesis; herein lies the problem. A complication remains an injury and is part of the evidence until trial.

Proof occurs during the trial. The preponderance of evidence is the criterion for proof—50 percent probability plus a scintilla. Scintilla is in the eyes of the beholder and has any value.

At trial, the plaintiff’s attorney has the burden of proof. Defense attorneys do not need to prove anything; they need only to cast doubt on the proof. Inductive reasoning and preponderance of evidence are used by both. Conclusions are nothing more than educated guesses having slightly more confidence than flipping a coin.

Finders of fact are the decision-makers. Because of inductive reasoning and the arbitrary nature of scintilla, mistakes in their decision-making are very possible, which is often favorable to the one side that exploits threats to validity the best.

These are today’s rules. There are other rules, but they are for scientists. Medical experts are scientists, not lawyers. These other rules are based on deductive reasoning – the scientific method. Deductive reasoning is not too dissimilar from inductive reasoning with one notable exception. When adapted to a lawsuit, these rules are as follows:

The categories of evidence and the premises are the same as in inductive reasoning.

The hypothesis is “The standard of care is not significantly different from the disputed treatment.” In the scientific method, this is called the null hypothesis. The proposition is that a difference between the standard of care and the disputed treatment only infers a departure from the standards of care. A complication in the disputed treatment is presumed to be an error of nature until proven otherwise.

Deductive reasoning compares the standard of care to the disputed treatment. Deductive reasoning tests the null hypothesis. Therefore, an error of nature can be proven otherwise. This is the notable exception from inductive reasoning.

In the interest of the test, the disputed treatment and the standard of care are separated into ten corresponding phases in which the duty to do no harm applies. As each of the 10 phases is compared, differences are measured as a risk of harm. In the sample of 10 results for the disputed treatment, some are the same and have no risk of harm. The occurrence of a complication corresponds to the background risk of an error of nature. Others are different and have a risk of harm. The occurrence of a complication exceeds the background risk. In fact, the occurrence of a complication equals the risk of harm multiplied by background risk.

A statistical test analyzes these ten results in the disputed treatment. The proof is a preponderance of evidence; however, scintilla, which is accepted as having any value, is 45 percent, making the criterion for proof 95 percent confident. This corresponds to a level of significance (alpha) of 0.05 – standard in the scientific method. The background risk represents the standard of care. The result of the test is the p-value. If p < 0.05, the difference is statistically significant, and the null hypothesis is rejected. The complication in the disputed treatment is caused by a medical error. If p ≥ 0.05, the difference is not statistically significant, and the null hypothesis is retained.

ADVERTISEMENT

The test of the null hypothesis is part of the evidence.

At trial, the plaintiff’s attorney has the burden of proof. This is satisfied by rejecting the null hypothesis. The defense attorney casts doubt on this proof by retaining the null hypothesis. Conclusions are irrefutable proof, not educated guesses.

Finders of fact are the decision-makers. While finders-of-fact are not scientists, they are intelligent. They know proof when they see it. They hear all the evidence. Not testing the null hypothesis and, worse yet, manipulating the test is obvious to finders-of-fact and expose bias by medical experts and attorneys, who exploit threats to validity. They also know that 95 percent confidence stands in stark contrast to 50 percent confidence plus some ill-defined scintilla.

Medical experts are ethically obligated to objectivity. As scientists, they know or should know how to do this. If they do not, their opinions are not objective. Attorneys are ethically obligated to advocate. They will use whatever reasoning most benefits their client. Advocacy and objectivity do not necessarily conflict. This is the game changer that distinguishes an ethical medical expert from a hired gun and a principled attorney from a rainmaker, and sooner or later, it will become the new normal.

Howard Smith is an obstetrics-gynecology physician.

Prev

From pain management to Port au Prince: a doctor's journey in disaster relief

February 15, 2024 Kevin 0
…
Next

Building credibility in digital health [PODCAST]

February 15, 2024 Kevin 1
…

Tagged as: Malpractice

Post navigation

< Previous Post
From pain management to Port au Prince: a doctor's journey in disaster relief
Next Post >
Building credibility in digital health [PODCAST]

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Howard Smith, MD

  • The hidden incentives driving frivolous malpractice lawsuits

    Howard Smith, MD
  • How doctors can stop frivolous lawsuits before they start

    Howard Smith, MD
  • When errors of nature are treated as medical negligence

    Howard Smith, MD

Related Posts

  • Medical malpractice is a lot like running a marathon

    Christine Zharova, Esq
  • Medical malpractice: Don’t let the minority define us

    Shah-Naz H. Khan, MD
  • How the COVID-19 pandemic highlights the need for social media training in medical education 

    Oscar Chen, Sera Choi, and Clara Seong
  • End medical school grades

    Adam Lieber
  • Navigating mental health challenges in medical education

    Carter Do
  • The role of income in medical school acceptance

    Carter Do

More in Physician

  • How shared language saved a patient from isolation

    Syed Ahmad Moosa, MD
  • The shocking risk every smart student faces when applying to medical school

    Curtis G. Graham, MD
  • The physician who turned burnout into a mission for change

    Jessie Mahoney, MD
  • Time theft: the unseen harm of abusive oversight

    Kayvan Haddadan, MD
  • Why more doctors are leaving clinical practice and how it helps health care

    Arlen Meyers, MD, MBA
  • Harassment and overreach are driving physicians to quit

    Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Who gets to be well in America: Immigrant health is on the line

      Joshua Vasquez, MD | Policy
    • Why specialist pain clinics and addiction treatment services require strong primary care

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Conditions
    • Harassment and overreach are driving physicians to quit

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • Why peer support can save lives in high-pressure medical careers

      Maire Daugharty, MD | Conditions
    • When a medical office sublease turns into a legal nightmare

      Ralph Messo, DO | Physician
    • Addressing menstrual health inequities in adolescents

      Callia Georgoulis | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Who gets to be well in America: Immigrant health is on the line

      Joshua Vasquez, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • How shared language saved a patient from isolation

      Syed Ahmad Moosa, MD | Physician
    • The shocking risk every smart student faces when applying to medical school

      Curtis G. Graham, MD | Physician
    • Clinical ghosts and why they haunt our exam rooms

      Kara Wada, MD | Conditions
    • High blood pressure’s hidden impact on kidney health in older adults

      Edmond Kubi Appiah, MPH | Conditions
    • Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • How declining MMR vaccination rates put future generations at risk

      Ambika Sharma, Onyi Oligbo, and Katrina Green, MD | Conditions

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

Leave a Comment

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • Who gets to be well in America: Immigrant health is on the line

      Joshua Vasquez, MD | Policy
    • Why specialist pain clinics and addiction treatment services require strong primary care

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Conditions
    • Harassment and overreach are driving physicians to quit

      Olumuyiwa Bamgbade, MD | Physician
    • Why peer support can save lives in high-pressure medical careers

      Maire Daugharty, MD | Conditions
    • When a medical office sublease turns into a legal nightmare

      Ralph Messo, DO | Physician
    • Addressing menstrual health inequities in adolescents

      Callia Georgoulis | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • Forced voicemail and diagnosis codes are endangering patient access to medications

      Arthur Lazarus, MD, MBA | Meds
    • How President Biden’s cognitive health shapes political and legal trust

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Conditions
    • Why are medical students turning away from primary care? [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • The One Big Beautiful Bill and the fragile heart of rural health care

      Holland Haynie, MD | Policy
    • Who gets to be well in America: Immigrant health is on the line

      Joshua Vasquez, MD | Policy
    • Why “do no harm” might be harming modern medicine

      Sabooh S. Mubbashar, MD | Physician
  • Recent Posts

    • How shared language saved a patient from isolation

      Syed Ahmad Moosa, MD | Physician
    • The shocking risk every smart student faces when applying to medical school

      Curtis G. Graham, MD | Physician
    • Clinical ghosts and why they haunt our exam rooms

      Kara Wada, MD | Conditions
    • High blood pressure’s hidden impact on kidney health in older adults

      Edmond Kubi Appiah, MPH | Conditions
    • Deep transcranial magnetic stimulation for depression [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • How declining MMR vaccination rates put future generations at risk

      Ambika Sharma, Onyi Oligbo, and Katrina Green, MD | Conditions

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...