As a former defense med mal attorney, I’m very familiar with discrediting experts through collateral attack. Failing to adequately prepare the expert to parry this line of questioning can be problematic. Eliciting many of the following points from your witness (perhaps on direct) will neutralize the cross examination:

  • medQuest, directed by a former defense med mal attorney, does plaintiff and defense work
  • Experts generally work for both sides and reject most plaintiff files on the merits
  • Reviewers feel an obligation to police the profession – many perform free curbside reviews
  • Physicians are actively practicing, deriving but a small % of income from legal work
  • Irrelevant whether the case is from medQuest or from attorney – fees and opinions are the same
  • Attorneys pay experts directly for dep/trial as medQuest withdraws after initial evaluation
  • Outrageously priced experts are excluded from medQuest’s panel
  • Physicians are independent consultants with no knowledge of our marketing/business practices
  • Unlike competitors, medQuest does not advertise in major trade journals i.e. Trial Magazine