One of the WORST cross examinations ever; NY Medical Malpractice Attorney Gerry Oginski Explains

This was one of the WORST cross examinations I have ever seen!
NY Medical Malpractice Attorney Gerry Oginski Explains

516-487-8207

I have seen a lot of cross examinations.
I have done many cross examinations.

Whenever I am in court I will always try and find a courtroom that has a trial going on, sit down and observe.

I find that the best trial lawyers in New York are ones who do this. Why?

It's because they want to see what other attorneys are doing well and importantly we also want to see what attorneys are doing poorly.

An experienced trial lawyer can learn much from an attorney who does something poorly. It also serves as a reminder of what not to do during the course of your own trial.

In this particular instance I happened to be in court that day and sat down in a courtroom where there was an ongoing medical malpractice trial.

The defense attorney had brought into court one of the patient's treating doctors. His goal was to have the treating doctor explain to the jury what complaints the patient made, what observations she made, and what her treatment plan was for the patient who was now bringing a lawsuit against another doctor.

You should know that there is an important distinction between a doctor who comes in to testify as a medical expert against another doctor compared to a doctor who is simply a treating physician, often known as a subsequent treating doctor.

A treating doctor is there to simply tell the jury about their observations and what conditions they observed and what treatment they rendered. They are not giving opinions or conclusions about treatment given by any other doctor.

On the other hand, a medical expert is called into court to testify about violations from the basic standards of medical care.

To place blame. To show that a doctor departed from good and accepted medical care.

A medical expert is called in to testify that as a result of those violations from good medical care, the patient suffered significant harm.

A medical expert is often treated as a hostile witness when an attorney cross-examines him. Jurors recognize and understand that during cross examination questioning may get hot and heavy.

However, that is rarely the case when you have a treating doctor come in to testify. Yet in this particular case, that's exactly what the plaintiff's attorney did when he got up to cross-examine the patient's treating doctor.

He treated her as a hostile witness.
He began to attack her comments and observations.
In my opinion, this was one of the worst cross examinations I have ever seen in my 26 year career practicing law in New York.

I personally think the plaintiff's attorney took the wrong strategy and judging by the jury's reactions to his antics, the jury did not appreciate his vicious attack on this doctor who did nothing to hurt his case.

Watch the video to learn more...

Law Office of Gerald Oginski
25 Great Neck Road, Ste. 4
Great Neck, NY 11021
516-487-8207

[weiqiu]

At least the cross examination question is futile. It is negative to make the doctor hostile, and it looked bad to the Jury. No good.

[NYMedicalMalpractice]

Have you ever watched a really bad cross-examination? This was it.
#crossexamination   #medicalmalpractice   #trial   #newyork   #ny   #nyc