Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (53139)	7/7/2004 2:21:36 AM
From: zeta1961	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793908

<<the burden of proof is NOT "beyond a reasonable doubt", In a civil trial, the burden is "preponderance of the evidence The question is, "do you have an opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, whether X act DID cause Y result?">>>>> There are many ways of framing this question to make the witness feel that he has to word his answer as if asked directly for 'beyond reasonable doubt', and these exact words are what I heard in this case when the defense was turning up the heat....sounds like it was irregular...unfortunate...the judge gave him a pass... <<The plaintiff must prove that malpractice DID happen.>> Yes, but the bar is quite low in the CP patients...all you need is 1) a child with CP, 2)a couple of examples of behavior that are common in the delivery room(since not everything is mechanical, done at the precision the textbooks delineate)... yet most times do not result in brain damage/CP <<being a wonderful health care provider 99.99% of the time doesn't save you when you screw up just once.>> True...but I explained to you that it was the lack of thorough documentation and not bad behavior that cemented the verdict...and as you know, if it's not documented, it was not done in the eyes of any QA manager and defense attorney... Apology accepted... Zeta