Sunday, June 20, 2010

The Arrogance of the Plaintiff Expert is Exceeded by Only by Inexperience, Lack of Common Sense, and Ignorance of the Law: The 15-Minute Med Check

Dr. Douglas Mossman is a better columnist than the horrible person he replaced. I do not want him gone, as I demanded his predecessor be gone. The latter must have generated massive protests against his anti-clinician bias. Dr. Mossman, nevertheless, has a conflict of interest, which he has failed to disclosed. As the head of a forensic psychiatry service, he likely does better when litigation is needlessly churned over. If anyone learns he is testifying as a plaintiff expert, I would appreciate the information, so that I may begin to act against this clinician basher.

This column is useful. However, it should have a counterpoint section to correct its anti-clinician bias.

Dr. Mossman misleads by omission.

1) The clinician must exercise clinical judgment. There is no such thing as a 15 minute med check standard of care. The duration of a session is clinical decision based on need. Some patients need 2 minutes every 6 months. Others need 2 hours a day to prevent a catastrophe. The majority of patients get no time at all, since they do not come back after they improve. Is there a duty to hunt these down and to force a 15 minute med check on them, against their wills? No. They need a zero minute med check, and will call if they worsen again.

2) His false utterances were they to be made in testimony would have to meet the Daubert Standard or the Frye Standard for scientific expert testimony, depending on the state. The clinician should find which applies in his state. Then every utterance of the plaintiff expert should be subjected to their standards. Both are named after Supreme Court of the US cases, and are the law of the land. The federal Rules of Evidence have incorporated the Daubert standard as a statutory requirement for expert testimony.

3) That being said, there is no correlation between the extent and quality of the medical record and quality of care. The record requirement is to intimidate, and to harass the clinician. It makes the life of people like Dr. Mossman easier, as well. They can find more words to use against the innocent defendant. If I am a patient suffering from some injury or crushing chest pain or intense depression, and the doctor is documenting me, I am getting pretty angry. I am going to toss that stupid laptop and that notepad from the window. Remind the Doc, the pain is here, and it is agonizing, stop record keeping and start taking care of my suffering.

Doctors like Dr. Mossman are really enablers and collaborators of the lawyer profession oppressor, as it seeks to plunder and destroy clinical care. The personal counterattack on these disloyal experts should be pitiless.

No comments:

Post a Comment