Comments

Merit Decision: A Primer for all Medical Malpractice Practitioners. Mortez v. Muakkassa. — 1 Comment

  1. Closing comment : handling medical claims has become
    “considerably harder.” Marianna, you are, as always, so admirably diplomatic.

    As part of the “Supreme Court Watch, I would like to see an analysis not just of an individual case decision, but a “meta analysis” of the totality of the Court’s jurisprudence since Republicans gained control of it, that has resulted in making pursuing medical claims “considerably harder.”

    For example, how many medical malpractice cases have been decided by the Court? How many decisions have been in favor of the medical provider vs. the patient? How many times has the OSMA (and other medical amici lining up in Moretz) appeared as an amicus, and how many times in those cases has its position been adopted? That, more than any individual case analysis may well reveal the true “reasoning” behind any given decision. As Justice Pfeifer noted, sometimes the forest is more revealing than the trees….

    For those of us struggling “considerably harder” in this litigation, it is easy to suppose that had the verdict and appellant been switched in Moretz, the outcome on appeal would have been as well. I respectfully doubt any plaintiff/appellant would ever be deemed to have demonstrated prejudice sufficient to reverse a verdict in favor of a physician simply by virtue of a jury having an illustration sent back to the jury room as an exhibit, as opposed to just seeing and hearing it discussed repeatedly during the course of trial. I can actually visualize those very words being written, denying the plaintiff-appellant a new trial.

    Without intending to disparage your incredible powers of observation and analysis (I love “How It Looks From the Bleachers”), while handling medical claims has become considerably harder, predicting outcomes has become “considerably easier.”

    Thanks, MB, as always for your intelligent discussion and insights.