Steven Babitsky, Esq.
Experienced expert witnesses use numbered lists when expressing their opinions. In complex cases, even if the jury doesn’t understand or remember what all the reasons are, they will remember that the expert had multiple reasons supporting his opinion. Let’s take a look at an example of this technique:
Q. Have you formed an opinion as to whether Doctor Krist deviated from the standard of care?
A. I have.
Q. What is that opinion?
A. Doctor Krist deviated from the standard of care.
Q. Can you summarize the reasons for this opinion?
A. Yes, I have six of them.
- She embarked on a course of very prolonged, poorly monitored lytic therapy in a case which required treatment by surgical thrombectomy because of the sensory and motor changes present.
- Having started therapy for whatever reason, failing to use an aggressive fragmentation, high concentration, directed lytic agent infusion; and for some reason starting and continuing therapy in a demonstrably non-essential, currently and previously non-collateralizing profunda femoris artery while the condition of the right foot and leg continued to deteriorate.
- Failing to recognize that the previously angiographically demonstrated major collateral, the DBrLCF was obstructed and that Mr. B.’s leg and foot were not in the same condition as before bypass surgery and now had insufficient collateralization to maintain viability.
- She continued the infusion in a non-essential artery for 11 hours after the current patient complaint began, before trying to clear the bypass graft of clot.
- She failed to pursue established principles of lytic therapy, failed to observe the limitations, and the indications and contraindications of the technique.
- She failed to obtain adequate supervision of her performance from the surgeons in an area of treatment she claims is beyond her ability to evaluate and conduct.
