Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
We have three vignettes to share. And not all these stories are downers – in two cases, the doctors prevailed. In the third, the doctor lost a case he might have won, if only he behaved differently.
Our first vignette takes us to rural New Jersey – as you may have guessed already, it’s former patient vs. surgeon. The surgeon showed up to the trial four hours late. He and his wife entered the courtroom wearing boutique clothes and expensive jewelry. The jury stiffened. The defense attorney took the client aside and asked him to remove his jewelry. He asked the same of the surgeon’s wife. Both refused.
A poor start.
What was this case about? To bring the details to the forefront: The plaintiff alleged the surgeon caused permanent nerve damage while operating. The surgeon successfully repaired the nerve, and the patient experienced a positive result. The patient sued the surgeon despite this.
Ultimately, the jurors found the surgeon negligent to the tune of $1.2 million. The surgeon appealed the verdict and apparently settled out of court while the appeal was pending.
His attorney believed the surgeon would have experienced a better outcome if he heeded his counsel’s warnings and ditched the bling.
To put some more blood in the water, that settlement likely resulted in a report to the National Practitioner Data Bank. That’s not a great outcome.
There is a tendency among some doctors to assume that a favorable fact pattern will vindicate them. Jurors judge much more than just the facts of the case. A flashy wardrobe (be it jewelry, shoes, or suits) turns a doctor into a caricature.
This case should serve as a reminder.
“The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,” says health law attorney Michael Clark of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP based in Houston. “The same phenomenon occurs in a deposition. Awareness of how you are being assessed at all times, and the image that is needed, is important since a negative impression by jurors can have a detrimental effect on a physician’s case.”
The environment also plays a role. Behaving in this way in any environment was likely to do harm – but it should be said that there are some areas of the country where this kind of opulent dress is less offensive. Presenting in this manner before a rural, working-class jury (as was the case here) did not help him.
Let’s move on to our next vignette.
They say shoes make the man. In this case, they almost unmade him. We’re off to Connecticut and another malpractice trial. Like our previous protagonist, the defendant doctor made a poor first impression.
“Against his attorney’s advice, the doctor showed up daily to his trial in bright pastel, monochromatic suits with matching Gucci-brand shoes, said medical liability defense attorney Meredith C. Lander, of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan LLP, based in Connecticut.”
A bad omen, but ultimately, the doctor prevailed, largely because of a favorable fact pattern and strong testimony from the defense experts.
“The foreperson said the jury didn’t like the doctor or his ‘Gucci suits and shoes,’ but they believed the experts,” Lander said.
Emotional outbursts can also sabotage a doctor’s success. Catherine Flynn, another defense attorney, recalls an event with a particularly self-destructive client.
During this case, a surgeon insisted on sitting next to Flynn, although she generally requests clients sit in the first row so that jurors are not so focused on their reactions during testimony. The surgeon loudly peppered Flynn with questions as witnesses testified, prompting a reprimand from the judge.
The judge admonished the doctor several times and said, ‘Doctor, you’re raising your voice. You’ll get a chance to speak with your attorney during the break,’ ” Flynn recalled. “The doctor refused to stop talking, and the judge told him in front of the jury to go sit in the back of the courtroom. His reaction was, ‘Why do I have to move?! I need to sit here!”
What happened next? Recall your days in elementary school. Disruptive students are sent to the back of the classroom.
“The surgeon eventually moved to the back of the courtroom and a sheriff’s deputy stood next to him. Testimony continued until a note in the form of a paper airplane landed on the table in front of Flynn. She carefully crumpled the note and tossed it in the wastebasket. Luckily, this drew a laugh from jurors.”
The case came to a head when the surgeon delivered his testimony. He refused to answer any questions and instead insisted on telling the jury his side of the story. The judge muzzled the surgeon (metaphorically) after threatening to haul him off the stand.
In the end, the facts won out. Despite his best efforts to sabotage himself, the surgeon prevailed.
All three vignettes highlight behavior that takes place inside of the courtroom. But doctors must be cautious outside the courtroom as well. Conversations in stairwells, elevators, and bathrooms are often overheard. If a juror overhears the doctor venting, that can spell disaster.
And with human curiosity being what it is, don’t be shocked if you learn later a jury used the internet to look you up. Many defense attorneys advise clients to lock up their social media accounts in the months leading up to a trial. Content posted on these profiles can affect how the public perceives a doctor.
Online reviews can also play a role here for better and for worse – one more reason to never engage a patient in an online debate.
So, those are the bad apples. What are the take-home points?
Dress professionally, but not opulently. Don’t let the opposition rattle you. Your opponents are provocateurs. They want to piss you off. Once they light your fuse, they know it’s only a matter of time before you blow yourself up.
Answer the questions asked of you, no matter how flippant you perceive them. Never provide a flippant answer, and never cop an attitude. Your attorney and other consultants can help you prepare. Be a diplomat.
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.
Medical Justice provides consultations to doctors facing medico-legal obstacles. We have solutions for doctor-patient conflicts, unwarranted demands for refunds, online defamation (patient review mischief), meritless litigation, and a gazillion other issues. We also provide counsel specific to COVID-19. If you are navigating a medico-legal obstacle, visit our booking page to schedule a consultation – or use the tool shared below.
“Can Medical Justice solve my problem?” Click here to review recent consultations…
all. Here’s a sample of typical recent consultation discussions…
- Former employee stole patient list. Now a competitor…
- Patient suing doctor in small claims court…
- Just received board complaint…
- Allegations of sexual harassment by employee…
- Patient filed police complaint doctor inappropriately touched her…
- DEA showed up to my office…
- Patient “extorting” me. “Pay me or I’ll slam you online.”
- My carrier wants me to settle. My case is fully defensible…
- My patient is demanding an unwarranted refund…
- How do I safely terminate doctor-patient relationship?
- How to avoid reporting to Data Bank…
- I want my day in court. But don’t want to risk my nest egg…
- Hospital wants to fire me…
- Sham peer review inappropriately limiting privileges…
- Can I safely use stem cells in my practice?
- Patient’s results are not what was expected…
- Just received request for medical records from an attorney…
- Just received notice of intent to sue…
- Just received summons for meritless case…
- Safely responding to negative online reviews…
We challenge you to supply us with a medico-legal obstacle we haven’t seen before. Know you are in good hands. Schedule your consultation below – or click here to visit our booking page.
Jeffrey Segal, MD, JD
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
Dr. Jeffrey Segal, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of Medical Justice, is a board-certified neurosurgeon. Dr. Segal is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons; the American College of Legal Medicine; and the American Association of Neurological Surgeons. He is also a member of the North American Spine Society. In the process of conceiving, funding, developing, and growing Medical Justice, Dr. Segal has established himself as one of the country’s leading authorities on medical malpractice issues, counterclaims, and internet-based assaults on reputation.
Dr. Segal was a practicing neurosurgeon for approximately ten years, during which time he also played an active role as a participant on various state-sanctioned medical review panels designed to decrease the incidence of meritless medical malpractice cases.
Dr. Segal holds a M.D. from Baylor College of Medicine, where he also completed a neurosurgical residency. Dr. Segal served as a Spinal Surgery Fellow at The University of South Florida Medical School. He is a member of Phi Beta Kappa as well as the AOA Medical Honor Society. Dr. Segal received his B.A. from the University of Texas and graduated with a J.D. from Concord Law School with highest honors.
In 2000, he co-founded and served as CEO of DarPharma, Inc, a biotechnology company in Chapel Hill, NC, focused on the discovery and development of first-of-class pharmaceuticals for neuropsychiatric disorders.
Dr. Segal is also a partner at Byrd Adatto, a national business and health care law firm. Byrd Adatto was selected as a Best Law Firm in the 2021 edition of the “Best Law Firms” list by U.S. News – Best Lawyers. With decades of combined experience in serving doctors, dentists, and other providers, Byrd Adatto has a national pedigree to address most legal issues that arise in the business and practice of medicine.
To expand on what Mr. Clark stated (““The minute you enter the courthouse, jurors or potential jurors are sizing you up,”), as a med mal defense attorney for the past 24 years I would add that even *before* you enter the courtroom, jurors could be sizing you up. On more than one occasion in post-trial jury interviews, jurors have commented about the defendants’ (and defense attorney teams’) appearances and behavior in the parking garage/parking lot and in common areas of the courthouse. We’ve even had jurors comment on bumper stickers or parking passes on various people’s cars. From the minute you start heading towards court, be mindful that jurors could be assessing you at any point.
Because podiatrists do not graduate with an MD degree, we tend to recognize (correctly) that the world is always “sizing us up” in some way or another. This includes hospital employees, nurses and certainly other professionals. This is also true for DO graduates, to a similar or lesser extent.
For that reason, we tend to be more cognizant of how we appear to people who have a decision-making ability that might regulate our future. For this reason, I doubt that most of us who have been to court are ostentatious. Thank God I never had to be, (except as an expert witness), but I would not have attracted undue attention to myself.
When you sign on to be a doctor, you are making a kind of pact with society. Society expects you to fulfill that pact and it does NOT include ostentatious behavior. Like it or not, that is the way it is. If you want to behave this way, it is a better practice to do it “out of town” or in a place where you are not known.
Also mentioned in this article is the REAL possibility that your needlessly compromised image will result in a National Data Bank Registry. This is a very bad result. It should be made clear to physicians that this system does NOT favor either fairness or for that matter your ability to even continue to practice as a doctor.
It shouldn’t be that way, but it is.
Michael M. Rosenblatt, DPM
No less a light than the late, great P. J. O’Rourke told how to recognize newly wealthy person by their clothes: they’re flashy, often to the point of outrageous. Wealthy people, he pointed out, tended to wear good, understated, sturdy clothes that are comfortable and durable. The nouveau riche dress like they imagine wealthy people dress. And they get it wrong.
I wouldn’t wear cargo pants to court—but I do almost every day of the year. My sole sartorial vanity used to be my neckties, of which I own many, moat of which are gorgeous. Now I wear one maybe 4-5 times a year. No more sartorial vanity. At all.
And there’s the book, Dress For Success, in which various experiments are reported. People have really done this. Would you expect a tan overcoat or a black one to elicit more respect, i.e., seem to represent some form of social “superiority”? How would you ever figure it out?
Turns out you can. One experiment looking at things like this was to have one of two experimenters/actors arrive at a single door at the same time the unwitting subject does. One wears a black topcoat, the other tan. Only one interacts with any given subject. (To control the experiment, they went so far as to have the two guys swap coats and continue the study.). To which is the subject more likely to defer?
Turned out that the tan coat far outperformed the black one in eliciting respect.
Understated red ties project warmth and sincerity—good to know if you’re an expert in a jury trial. Check out the book.
Great article. Sometimes just the smallest stone can trip you up.