One powerful strategic tool we often employ when defending our healthcare clients at trial is alternative causation.
In medical malpractice cases, where nuances of causation can be complex and multifaceted, defense attorneys and experts should take the opportunity to present plausible alternative explanations for injury that can effectively disrupt the plaintiff’s narrative. By suggesting these possibilities, the defense can shift the jury’s focus toward the inherent uncertainties in the plaintiff’s case.
The rationale behind this strategy is straightforward: the defense does not bear the burden of proof and, therefore, does not have to present causation theories to a reasonable degree of medical probability. The mere presence of a credible possible alternative can make it more difficult for the jury to conclude that the plaintiff has met their burden of proof.
It is important to recognize the delicate balance involved in this strategy. The alternative theories presented by the defense must be grounded in a fair level of scientific or medical plausibility to be taken seriously by the jury. While these theories arguably do not need to meet the strict standard of medical probability, they must still be credible enough to challenge the plaintiff’s assertions effectively. By presenting alternative possibilities, defense experts can highlight where causation is uncertain.
If you need assistance with a legal matter, Waranch & Brown and our experienced attorneys are here to help.