When done perfectly the concerned physician will be left liable according to the elements of the plaintiff presented (Westfall, 2009). This is a sure way to gunner support for the lawsuit. Need for a thorough understanding of the case facts and medical issues involved is paramount. Both the lawyer and client should know these facts. Smith needs to understand his medical condition perfectly, so that he can better explain himself to the court. This way he will have a fighting chance in his medical malpractice suit.
Usually it is in the cross-examination that one wins a case. .
In order for liability theories and instances to surface, the underlying cross-examination should be effective. Questioning of a physician's inability during cross-examination is very important to the lawsuit and is usually to the advantage of the plaintiff. Techniques such as attacks based on bias and prejudice are usually used (Westfall, 2009). This cause of action exposes experts' bias and prejudice and this causes loss in the expert witness credibility. Another such technique is attacks based on qualification and expertise (Westfall, 2009). This way the knowledge base of the testifying medical practitioner is in question. This credits liability on the plaintiff and ensures their compensation in full.
In all cases, the underlying principle is proof. If a case has proof, then the victory goes to the one who provided the proof. According to North American law, on order to establish medical malpractice evidence has to indicate that the injury caused was due to negligence, in that, the failure of a physician to use the right methods or use of wrong methods in treating a patient (Alton, 2014). This proof is a fundamental cause of action and its embrace is required to win the case effectively. Through proof, the defendant can find the physician liable for John Smith's condition.
The physician must provide proof of the standards of post-operation care.
