Facebook-f Twitter Instagram Youtube Linkedin Envelope

research

0
Post Views: 6,118
Episode

66 – Dorothy Clay Sims & Dr. Oregon Hunter – The Lawyer-Doctor Duo: Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors

By Michael Cowen — 3 years ago

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael sits down with attorney Dorothy Clay Sims and Dr. Oregon Hunter to discuss their research on defense-paid medical witnesses. They’ll discuss how the pair became involved in this research, Dorothy’s book “Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors,” Dr. Hunter’s published study on the subject, and take an in-depth look at Dorothy’s favorite tactics for exposing deception in defense doctors.

The episode begins with a brief overview of what Dorothy and Dr. Hunter each do and how they became involved in it. Dr. Hunter focuses on watching video tapes of defense medical exams and generating charts of everything the “expert” lied about in those statements. In his initial study, he’s sad to say they lied or misrepresented the facts 100% of the time.

Dorothy explains how she used to have a large worker’s comp practice in Florida when she noticed a pattern – 60 of her clients were found to be malingerers by a Harvard-educated, smooth talking defense doctor. He was giving them all the same test, the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). Dorothy decided to sit down with the doctor who first created the test and found that the defense doctor was completely misrepresenting the results of the test. She even got the doctor who created the test to sign an affidavit saying, “If he was a student, I’d flunk him.”

This sparked a deep interest in the subject, and she began researching other tests to see how they’ve been manipulated to serve the interests of the defense. As her work gained more attention, she began receiving phone calls from David Ball himself telling her, “You’ve got to write a book, dammit. You’ve got to do it!” So, she complied and wrote “Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors,”which Michael describes as “the Bible” for any case where you have a doctor on the other side.

Dorothy goes on to share some of her more shocking findings, from 40% of defense doctors lying about their degrees, to a doctor who was fired for stealing from a poor patient’s medical fund to pay for prostitutes. She also shares some creative resources she uses to find this information and implores all plaintiff attorneys listening to do their due diligence whenever there’s a doctor on the other side trying to discredit their client.

Dorothy then shares her detailed, organized method for marking up her depo notes, allowing her to go into every defense doctor deposition prepared with the pertinent information (and a record of their lies). She has now compiled 30,000 pages of information on thousands of defense doctors, which she is willing to share with any plaintiff lawyer interested.

The conversation shifts to Dr. Oregon Hunter, whose published study on the subject.  He explains how if you look at the medical exams from defense doctors, they will appear at face value as an exam of a perfectly healthy person. But when he watches the video tape of the exam, all he can say is, “Oh my god.” He goes on to share countless examples of doctors who claimed they conducted a test, but either didn’t conduct the test at all or were so sloppy about it that there’s no way they could actually tell if the client was injured or not. He also shares how they’ll often use templates which contain information that has nothing to do with the person they’re examining. For example, a patient’s ankles were described as “normal,” but there was just one issue – the patient’s legs had both been amputated.

Michael then asks Dorothy, what are some other things we need to look out for when they’re “trying to pull the wool over our eyes?” Dorothy shares her experience with brain scans and the defense doctor showing slices of the scan which do not show damage, when there are other slices which show the damage much clearer. She continues with other examples of similar practices with different injuries and concludes by emphasizing the need to always be on the lookout for “false choices.” For example, the defense will say a client who had preexisting arthritis cannot have a herniated disc from the crash, when in reality you can have both.

Michael continues on this note by sharing a story of a radiologist who attempted to re-define the word “trauma” for the sake of the defense argument. After finding the book the doctor was referencing (MRI of the Brain and Spine by Scott Atlas) Michael uncovered a paragraph which states, “there is no legal or factual basis to date when a herniation happened from looking at an MRI.” After bringing this up in the deposition, he effectively ended the radiologist’s testimony career.

The episode concludes with Dorothy’s final words of advice for deposing defense doctors. She recommends numerous helpful strategies, including having the plaintiff present when the doctor calls them a liar, having your own doctor present to induce what Dr. Hunter calls “the halo effect,” and finally (and most importantly) do your research. Does the doctor say they are board certified? Look into the organization (one even certified a cat). Does their CV say anything about Harvard? Definitely look into that, as she’s found 80% of defense doctors with Harvard on their resume are lying about it. Utilizing this advice and the excellent resources mentioned in this episode will ensure that even if the defense doctor is lying through their teeth, you won’t let them get away with it.

This podcast also covers gaining permission to video record defense doctor exams, sociopathy in defense doctors, what “grossly normal” on a report really means, the importance of reading the literature the defense doctor cites, and so much more.

You can reach Dorothy Clay Sims via email at dcs@dorothyclaysims.com and through her website at https://dorothyclaysims.com/.

 

Bio:

Dorothy Sims and her team combine decades of experience in medical, legal, and research fields.

On a daily basis, Dorothy consults with attorneys throughout the U.S., to provide methods of expert testimony cross-examination. If an attorney requests, Dorothy can depose experts herself. For more information about her consulting, visit the Consultations page .

Dorothy’s practice includes numerous other projects and philanthropic work. She is frequently invited to in-house seminars for lawyers and law firms on researching and cross-examining. She has given over 350 speeches internationally on medical/legal issues throughout the world and is often invited as the state keynote speaker. She has spoken in almost every state in the United States including Hawaii and Alaska. She has also been a featured speaker in Paris, France, Jaipur, India, and twice in Kyoto, Japan.

She has authored chapters in books with individuals such as David Ball and Don Keenan as well as Dr. Michael Freeman. Dorothy donates a percentage of her book profits various organizations including the American Association for Justice and the International Federation for Human Rights. Her book, “Exposing Deceptive Defense Doctors ” was a best seller for 3 years in a row and went into reprint status soon after publication, unheard of in the industry. She has also authored two children’s books for parents who are injured. The books are available for free upon request. She has also authored articles in national publications to include the Champion Magazine, Trial Magazine (The American Association for Justice Journal) most recently on the cover of the December, 2015 issue, and Brain Injury Professional.

About Dorothy Sims

Dorothy received both her undergraduate and law degree from the University of Florida; and studied international law at Oxford University. She is licensed in the state of Florida, US District Court – Northern District of Florida, US District Court and the Middle District of Florida. She has also cross examined experts in many states throughout the US.

Dorothy initially represented miners in Kentucky who were denied black lung benefits. Going down into the bowels of a mine in Eastern Kentucky, she felt vibrations as the miners “shot coal” (exploded portions of the face to loosen the coal). Despite wearing a mask, her trip left her coughing and sneezing coal dust for days; leading to a newfound respect for the dreaded pneumoconiosis suffered by miners who had spent decades in the mines.

After representing coalminers, Dorothy began representing workers who were injured and denied medical care. She co-founded the Florida Workers’ Advocates – the state’s first watchdog over the insurance industry devoted to serving injured – and eventually served as president.

For over a decade, Sims volunteered time to lobby on behalf of the injured and was the first woman to be elected Chair of the Florida Bar Worker’s Compensation Section in its 22-year history. She also served as President of the Marion County Bar Association.

While practicing law, she began to notice an alarming pattern. Forensic experts hired by the other side were reaching conclusions by (1) misrepresenting the science (2) ignoring the science (3) misrepresenting the facts and/or their examination and/or (4) testifying beyond their own training and education.

About Dr. Oregon Hunter

Dorothy’s most recent addition to her team is Dr. Oregon K. Hunter, MD – a medical doctor licensed in Florida – who currently works on cases with Dorothy and other lawyers to determine if misrepresentations are made about the science. If you provide notice to defense counsel, he can attend a deposition as a non-testifying consultant. He can remote in for mediations to explain medical issues to the defense in support of the plaintiff’s case. He watches videotapes of defense exams and provides an analysis for lead counsel explaining what the other side’s expert misrepresented. For an example of an evaluation of a case conducted by Dr. Hunter in which the expert’s exam was videotaped contact us here.

Dr. Hunter is board certified in Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation and practiced medicine in Hawaii, California and Florida. He joined Dorothy’s team in 2015 and is an invaluable asset in reviewing cases.

Dr. Hunter is also available to attend mediations by video and explain weaknesses in defense’s position. Attorneys Evan Lubell (elubell@floridalegalrights.com) and Dan Ramsfeld (dan@ramsdelllaw.com) can be contacted as references for Dr. Hunter’s recent participation in their case.

 

0
Post Views: 6,057
Episode

62 – John Campbell – The Empirical Jury: Big Data with Big Results

By Michael Cowen — 3 years ago

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael is joined by attorney, law professor, and founder of Empirical Jury, John Campbell. They sit down for a conversation about big data for trial lawyers, what John’s company “Empirical Jury” does, legal “urban legends” and their validity (or lack thereof), the most interesting findings he has discovered working on specific cases, and an in-depth look at the effects of COVID-19 on jury attitudes.

The episode starts off with Michael asking John how he got into the field of jury research. John describes his path of starting out as a teacher and deciding to go back to school to become a lawyer. He then joined Denver Law School as a professor studying tort reform in an academic setting, founded the Denver Empirical Justice Institute, and discovered his passion for big data. There, he studied civil justice issues and how jurors behave, but wondered if he could apply scientific methods and big data to law based on an individual case. Basically, he wanted to know what would happen if he had 400 people look at a case instead of the traditional 10-15 people you get with a focus group.

Thus, Empirical Jury was born. John describes the process as working like a “gig economy.” He will share an ad along the lines of, “be a mock juror and get paid to do it,” and is able to recruit hundreds of workers in one day. The work is all done online in their own time, and costs much less per juror than a traditional focus group. With numbers like that, Michael asks what everyone must be thinking – how representative can your jury pool be? Are the respondents all underemployed young people? John says it’s more representative than you’d think. He explains how many people take online surveys for fun, like playing Sudoku. His participants range between 18-80 years old, very conservative to very liberal, and typically earn up to $150,000 a year.

Michael then inquires about the many “urban legends” of law applied to jurors, specifically are any of them true? The short answer is no, but John dives into some surprising details. The moral of the story is to avoid stereotyping based on factors like race or gender, but to instead focus heavily on their responses to bias questions. A juror who believes the burden of proof is too low for the plaintiff’s lawyer being placed on the jury can have detrimental effects on the outcome of the case.

John goes on to share some of his most interesting findings. The first addresses the idea that if you ask for more, you get more. He has found this to be true based on the anchoring principle, with an interesting caveat – the amount you ask for directly affects liability. Typically, the liability climbs the more you ask for until you hit “the cliff.” He shares a shocking example of this in practice and concludes with, “You’re your own damage cap.”

The conversation shifts to the highly debated topic of COVID-19 and its effects on jury attitudes. John has conducted extensive research on this topic, including a survey of 1,500 jurors asking questions about COVID-19 and trial options. He lists a number of shocking statistics and concludes that to seat a jury today you would have to account for a loss of 50% of jurors before asking a single voir dire question not related to COVID-19. Knowing this information, another vital question remains – do the remaining 50% of jurors skew towards the defense or the plaintiff? John explains how the answer is more complicated than most people think, but goes on to share some in-depth findings which have huge implications for the future of jury trials.

John continues by describing another study he conducted where he asked 1,200 jurors how they would prefer to participate in a jury, including a variety of in-person and virtual options. The respondents had a surprising favorite – the option to watch the case via video recording from home, on their own time. While this may sound far-fetched, John describes a series of strategies which could be used to make this a success.

With virtual trials becoming a new possibility, many plaintiff’s lawyers are wondering if a jury can award a big damage verdict without attending the trial in person. With an absence of body language or eye contact, will damages decrease? John doesn’t think so. He cites multiple studies he has conducted in the past where he’s been able to predict huge verdicts within 10% of the actual verdict. He believes if you show jurors real evidence such as day in the life videos, jurors take that seriously and award damages accordingly. He compares this to watching a movie and crying, to which Michael adds, “You just have to change the presentation.” Michael and John both agree that lawyers may have to go to trial this year whether they want to or not, and they reflect on the best strategies lawyers who face this should take.

Another concern commonly noted by plaintiff’s lawyers faced with the possibility of a trial in the era of COVID-19 is if jurors are forced to attend court in person, do they blame the plaintiff because they filed the lawsuit? While some early research indicated they may, John has not found this to be true. His research showed jurors blame the plaintiff and the defense in equal numbers, but the most common answer was, “I don’t blame anyone. I understand this has to happen.” John summarizes the COVID-19 effect on jurors by stating, “While there are some effects on who will show up for jury duty, what we don’t see is a blame for the plaintiff’s attorney.”

This podcast also covers the role of traditional focus groups, using instincts in trial, jury consultant costs, the Fusion Effect, jury attitudes towards medical malpractice cases, how to test if online jurors are paying attention and if their responses should be accepted, what the defense already does with big data, and so much more.

If you’d like to work with John Campbell on a case or would like to learn more about Empirical Jury, you can visit their website at www.empiricaljury.com or email John directly at john@empiricaljury.com.

Click here to view the COVID-19 research PDF John mentions on the show.

 

Bio:

John Campbell, JD is a trial and appellate lawyer turned law professor turned jury researcher.

John trained as a trial lawyer under John Simon, a member of the Inner Circle of Advocates, and then went on to become a successful consumer attorney.  John’s verdicts and settlements exceed $350 million.  John has also handled appeals in the Eighth, Second, Tenth, and Fourth Circuit, as well as the United States Supreme Court and a variety of state courts.  Most recently, John served as lead counsel in a series of class actions against municipalities, including Ferguson, Missouri, who engaged in policing for profit.  The cases led to the eradication of many predatory fees targeted at minorities and the working poor.   John remains a member of Campbell Law LLC.

For eight years John served as a professor at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law.  While there, he founded the Civil Justice Research Initiative, dedicated to better understanding jury behavior through rigorous empirical research.  He continues to run CJRI at the University of Denver and teaches as an adjunct professor.

John’s academic work led to demand for him to study individual cases for plaintiff attorneys.  He ultimately founded Empirical Jury.  In only a few years, Empirical Jury has emerged as a cutting-edge firm that uses big data and scientific approaches to equip attorneys to obtain the best result possible for clients.  Empirical Jury has been involved in verdicts in excess of $550 million and is routinely called on to analyze some of the most complex consequential cases in the country.

During the Covid-19 era, Empirical Jury is also leading the way on understanding the Covid Effect through careful data gathering and analysis.  To date, Empirical Jury has surveyed over 1,200 jurors on topics relating to Covid-19, virtual trials, and jury duty.

 

Legal Podcasts
0
Post Views: 14,157
Episode

15 – Phillip Miller – Understanding the Minds of the Jury

By Michael Cowen — 5 years ago

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: Google Podcasts | Stitcher | Email | RSS | More

1 Stars2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...

In this Trial Lawyer Nation podcast, Michael Cowen sits down with author, trial consultant, and lawyer Phillip Miller from Nashville, TN.

Oddly enough, Phillip never planned on being a lawyer, being raised as a “military brat” traveling the country with his family that had a background in medicine in the military. It was actually the misfortune of dealing with attorneys in the wake of his father’s unfortunate passing, and subsequently, his mother passing 11 months later, which led him to want to go to law school at night while working during the day as a systems analyst. His practice started from humble beginnings to the point where he was paying overhead with no cases and not really knowing anyone in the field. However, his first case, which happened to be a car wreck, helped him to see his future in personal injury law.

Phillip credits his path to early success to his emphasis on education and taking as many CLE courses as possible. So much so that he began to have as much knowledge as those who were teaching the courses and soon after found himself invited to be on faculty with ATLA, which propelled his learning even more. Phillip notes that you don’t just get invited and start teaching. You first start out by writing a paper on the subject matter, which led to him reading more and becoming exposed to other great lawyers, and the cycle continued to help make him a better lawyer too. Michael also recalls a similar feeling of learning more from doing research and writing papers than from going to lectures to hear others speak on a topic.

Phillip discusses his views on learning from others and says that if you only talk with those who are practicing the same things in the same area, you’ll likely turn out to be just like them. Whereas he has sought to talk and learn from people from all over the world, just to get a different perspective on how others try those very same cases and continue to work cases from all four corners of the country and everywhere in between.

When asked by Michael about his approach to cases when he gets brought in, Phillip sites having worked with and picked up methodologies from Rodney Jew, like becoming an expert in taking depositions and the strategy behind them. As a great example of this, Phillip talks through the idea of “jury proof,” which goes beyond just the duty of breach, a duty of causation, and damages line of questions and instead delves into other questions that, if aren’t explored, resulting in a jury filling in their own answers. In other words, thinking beyond the obvious questions and answers that will help to win your case and looking at the case through the lens of a defense juror. Phillip goes on to say that these techniques are great for finding the “land mines” which could potentially damage a case. Then taking it a step further to use focus groups to help prioritize those detrimental pieces of jury proof, which helps to set up cases to be tried in an order geared towards a jury.

Phillip continues to talk through these “land mines” and the idea of working through the “bad” facts of a case to make them irrelevant or immaterial to the case, which sometimes includes just accepting them and moving on. He also notes that this does not always come easy to the plaintiff’s lawyers who are used to fighting for their client.  Michael also points out (from something Phillip mentioned earlier in the day) that juries tend to make the trials about what you take time to make them about; so when the defense has something bad for your case and you spend time-fighting about it, you end up making the focal point of the case more about that item.

The episode concludes with a discussion of the 5 things Phillip has learned about focus groups and juries and their significance to every case. He even gives some great insights on a product liability case involving talcum powder he worked on recently that really drives one of those jury lessons home.

 

Background on Phillip Miller

Phillip is nationally recognized for his work as a deposition/trial strategist and has been hired by firms in 30 states and the District of Columbia to help them prepare their biggest, most significant cases. Phillip maintains an active practice in Nashville, TN. He has been certified and re-certified as a Civil Trial Specialist, he is AV rated, and has been designated as a Super Lawyer repeatedly. His innovative approaches and case strategy work, including techniques like the “Miller Mousetrap”, have earned him recognition among trial lawyers nationally. Although 70% of Phillip’s time is doing deposition/case strategy and focus groups for other firms, Phillip has personally tried to a verdict both a tractor-trailer case and a school bus case within the last 12 months.

His two most recent books (co-authored with his friend, Paul Scoptur) are “Advanced Deposition Strategy and Practice” released by Trial Guides in July 2013; and “Focused Discovery” in the newly published Anatomy of the Personal Injury Lawsuit, in 2015.  His newest book “Focus Groups – Hitting the Bullseye” is published by AAJ Press and released in January 2017.

For more info on Phillip Miller, visit:

https://philliphmiller.com/