Viewpoint
Let's Put an End to False Testimony

FROM THE CHIEF MEDICAL EDITOR, Paul S. Koch, M.D.

If you want a chuckle, turn to this month's Letters to the Editor column and read one of the several
comments I received from plaintiff's attorneys about my October Viewpoint ("Is It Worth 'Fixing' Colleagues' Patients?").Apparently I hurt the feelings of some of these delicate flowers, so they took pen in hand to explain that they're really America's good guys, helping society. And, by golly, we should be glad they're there. The same gentle souls who call our operations "assaults" are boohooing big-time tears because I called them a bad name.

The letter on page 1, however, does point out a simple and accurate truth:Some states will not let a suit go forward unless a physician signs off that the case has merit. The writer indicates that this gives his position validity. He conveniently neglects to point out the use of a hired-gun physician who is in cahoots with the lawyer. "Have degree, will testify for money" is the motto of this latter-day Paladin. Any doubts? Do an Internet search for "plaintiff's medical expert."

TELL US IF IT HAPPENED TO YOU

Recently I was on the defense team of a silly suit and sat mouth agape as I read the document that let the case go forward. The expert ophthalmologist declared that, in the late 1990s, an open posterior capsule was an absolute contraindication to ever using an intraocular lens. And, if a lens was used it was a clear violation of standard of care to use one that did not have four positioning holes in the optic!

For our nonsurgeon readers: Lenses with four-hole optics were awful products that quietly disappeared more than a decade ago. The judge didn't know that and let the case proceed.

Maybe it's time to check out what's happening on the plaintiff's expert front. If any reader has been subjected to preposterous testimony from an ophthalmologist-colleague working for a plaintiff, send me the story. I don't want anyone venting over a difference of opinion. I want stuff that reeks of total dishonesty. Even better is if you have the court documents so we can read the testimony and perhaps quote from it.

Halloween has passed, but we can still unmask some goblins.