Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse of Central Texas

Contact: Kirsten Voinis (512-922-7141)
March 27, 2007

Texas physicians are concerned that bogus court testimony by some medical expert witnesses harms the medical profession and overwhelmingly support strong sanctions against medical experts who provide fraudulent testimony in Texas courts, according to a new survey released by Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) groups.

According to the survey of 636 Texas doctors, nearly three in five say they have personally seen or heard statements by a medical expert in a courtroom that they believe to be inaccurate or based on questionable science. More than half (64%) of physicians surveyed believe these so-called experts have a negative impact on the integrity of the medical profession.

Almost all physicians (93%) believe that medical expert witnesses should be sanctioned if their testimony is found to be fraudulent and 74% believe those witnesses should be sanctioned in the state where they testified and in the state where they are licensed. The survey was conducted in January and February by the Texas-based opinion research firm of Baselice & Associates, Inc. and has a margin of error of + 3.9%.

“As physicians, we know that the Hippocratic Oath to ‘do no harm’ should apply even when we serve as medical experts in the courtroom,” said Dr. Evelyn Tobias-Merrill, a family practice physician in Corpus Christi and spokesperson for the national Sick of Lawsuits campaign. “Most physicians take this role very seriously and provide an important service to our justice system. Unfortunately, some personal injury lawyers hire their own so-called experts to deliver questionable testimony, provide the stamp of scientific authority, and bolster baseless cases. This abusive practice injects junk science into Texas courts and, ultimately, inflicts harm on patients, threatens civil justice and discredits the medical profession itself.”

Fred Heldenfelds, chairman of CALA of Central Texas, added, “Junk science in the courtroom is a little talked about plague, and it must be stopped. We are here to expose this problem, and we call on Texas judges to be vigilant about junk science in our courts. We urge Texas judges to uphold the highest standards when it comes to medical expert witnesses in Texas courts.”

The survey found that respondents believe the testimony of medical expert witnesses was only “sometimes” honest (47%), factual (51%), and based on sound science (54%). The majority of physicians surveyed questioned the bias of medical experts, with 77% of physicians saying the testimony of medical expert witnesses was “never or seldom” or only “sometimes” unbiased.

Additionally, a majority of physicians surveyed (88%) believe it unethical for personal injury lawyers to pay medical experts based on the outcome of their testimony; and more than three in four physicians (79%) believe there is a problem with witnesses who receive financial incentives to provide supportive diagnose – a practice well-documented in Fen-Phen, silicosis and asbestosis litigation.

Dr. Merrill cited the now-infamous silicosis cases that were tossed out by U.S. District Court Judge Janis Jack of Corpus Christi as an example of questionable tactics by personal injury lawyers and their expert witnesses. The judge determined that nearly all of the 10,000 silicosis cases before her hinged on diagnoses that had been “manufactured for money.” In Judge Jack’s courtroom, it was revealed that one law firm involved in the cases only paid for positive diagnoses; some doctors simply signed a large stack of medical report forms without reading them; and silicosis can not be diagnosed based on an X-ray alone, the method used in the majority of these cases. Jack’s ruling prompted a Congressional investigation last year where expert witnesses involved pled the Fifth Amendment.

“Judge Jack’s ruling has exposed junk science for what it is – an abuse that undermines the integrity of our courts and misleads jurors who should be able to trust that information presented by someone billed as an “expert” is credible,” Dr. Merrill said. “Her actions should serve as an example for all judges that they can and should aggressively question the scientific basis for cases in their courts.”

While junk science undermines the justice system and the valuable role qualified, credible expert witnesses play in that process, it also hurts and scares patients. In one case, a patient screened for asbestos was never told that the screening physician spotted cancer in his lungs which went undiagnosed for a year. The man ultimately died.

“Clearly, this is an appalling example of how some professionals – personal injury lawyers and some of the medical experts they employ – have lost sight of the patient in the lucrative game of litigation,” Dr. Merrill said. “Texas physicians want these trial lawyers, and the expert witnesses they engage, to clean up their act.”

Added Heldenfelds, “Texas has made great progress in shedding our reputation as America’s Lawsuit Abuse Poster Child. But lawsuit abuse does continue to fester in pockets of our state, and junk science contributes to that problem.”

+++

Survey Methodology The findings reported in this release are from a statewide mail-out survey of 636 physicians in selected specialties conducted by the opinion research firm, Baselice & Associates, Inc., Austin, Texas. Survey responses were gathered January 2 – February 12, 2007. The margin of error for this survey is ± 3.9%.