The Scale of the Problem
Top Law Firms Silent: Every year, there are 85,000 medical malpractice lawsuits—66.6 percent of them are frivolous. In trying to address this problem, I reached out to 50 of the nation’s most prestigious medical malpractice law firms, both plaintiff and defense. My goal? To explore collaboration and introduce a risk management process I developed.
The Legal Powerhouses and Their Promises
Top Law Firms Silent: These firms collectively tout over 2,000 years of litigation experience and access to thousands of board-certified medical experts in every specialty.
- Defense firms bill by the hour
- Plaintiff firms operate on contingency and brag about massive settlements
- Their ads are bold: “If we don’t win, you don’t pay”
But none of them address a crucial question:
What makes their retained experts better than so-called ‘hired guns’?
The Question No One Answers
I ask each firm:
What do your medical experts do that sets them apart scientifically—not legally?
Because at best, medical experts are nonpartisan. At worst, they’re hired guns.
What Medical Experts Should Be Doing
All medical experts are scientists. They should be bound by the scientific method, not legal strategy. I reference Dr. Paul Brouardel, father of forensic science:
“If the law has made you a witness, remain a man of science…bear testimony within the limits of science.”
This means:
- Complications ≠ Negligence
The standard of care is the benchmark for competence. A complication could simply be a random error of nature. - Deviation ≠ Breach of Duty
Clinical decisions must sometimes take calculated risks—these don’t automatically mean negligence. - Objective, Quantitative Analysis
We can measure differences between standard care and intervention using 10 quantifiable metrics. - Statistical Significance Determines Error
A difference must be statistically significant (95% confidence level) to be considered a medical error, not a natural outcome.
The Distinction That Matters
I ask again:
Can any of your experts tell the difference between a random error of nature and a true medical error using this level of scientific rigor?
I explain that I’ve developed and peer-reviewed a protocol that does exactly that. I’m offering to share this framework—free of charge. All it takes is a phone call.
The Deafening Silence
Three months later—not a single law firm replies.
Not one phone call. Not one email.
Interpret this how you will. But to me, it says everything:
Frivolous lawsuits don’t bother them—because they profit either way.
And that, frankly, is pathetic.
By: Howard Smith, MD
Read More
From StanfordPhysicianAdvocate.org:
- How Vaccine Hesitancy is Reviving Deadly Childhood Diseases
- How a Coaching Culture Reduces Physician Burnout
- Hidden Crisis in Health Care: How Corporate Greed is Undermining Patient Care
- Transforming Health Care Leadership: Prioritizing Care for Providers and Patients
- The Financial Pressures Reshaping Physician Priorities
Take Action
If you’re a physician who believes expert witnesses should uphold science, not serve legal theater, you’re not alone.
➡️ Join the movement. Be part of the conversation.
Explore physician-led advocacy at StanfordPhysicianAdvocate.org.
Let’s restore integrity—in the courtroom and in our profession.