What Jurors Do not Know About Defense Medical Experts

Journal Written By

LAWCHEK™ and Lawsonline.com™ provide member writen articles to support the local library experiance on certin legal topics.  This provides information and recources to the libraries reference desk so the general public become better informed and can expand their personal knowlage on these specific topics by looking for other  articles writen by these authors.

 

November 4, 2025

Workplace injury cases that mainly happen due to negligence often require a medical expert to testify. A plaintiff relies on what the doctors say or testifies in court to get justice. It is obvious that once injured; you will run to your personal doctor who will examine and note the nature and extent of injuries you sustain. Your doctor will have your best interest at heart he/she will testify to the best of their knowledge to protect you and ensure that you get the right compensation. However, every defendant will have their doctors who must also examine you; the plaintiff and testify in a court of law. The defendant’s doctor will present their opinion about the plaintiff’s nature and severity of injuries. So, it becomes a plaintiff’s doctor’s version versus the defendant’s doctor’s version.

It is no secret that employers and companies use the same doctors as medical expert witnesses. A few doctors who are known to protect the interests of a company that pays well are hired by other industry players. Since their duty is to protect their big pay, they rarely agree with the plaintiff’s doctors regarding the extent of the injuries. Serious injuries will warrant higher monetary compensation. As such, they will relegate the extent of the injuries to protect their clients from losing a lot of money.

To the juror, the defending medical experts are on equal footing with a plaintiff’s treating physician. The plaintiff’s counsel will do their best to prove that the defendant’s medical experts are paid a yearly fee for to appear in court and for their time. However, defending medical experts always have a way of convincing the juror. They will bring their professional and ethical side by questioning why they should risk their career by sticking out for a single company. Though the juror will fall for this.

The jurors fail to understand that if the defending medical experts decided to side with the plaintiff’s doctor, the attorney might not hire them again to conduct defense examinations. This would mean the loss of income for the doctors. It is as simple as, if a defending doctor loses one case, they lose a company and other companies will no longer trust the doctor’s capability at defending their interests in court.

Though insurance companies will pay good money to protect their name and wealth, it is important for medical expert witnesses to remain ethical during their sessions. This also applies to plaintiff doctors who exaggerate the extent of injuries with the aim of getting more money from the plaintiff. At the end of the day, someone will be suing because they were neglected at work and it is only fair if justice is served. Alternatively, courts should consider appointing their unbiased medical defense experts to examine plaintiffs and offer their opinion to the juror. This would make work easier for the juror because they would have to side with the doctor whose statement matches that of their unbiased medical expert.

This site produced by enlighten technologies™.

Images

Photo by Vitaly Gariev on Unsplash

You May also Like

Using the Daubert Test

Using the Daubert Test

Using the Daubert Test to Determine an Expert Witness’s Credibility Though calling upon an expert witness isn’t a...

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *