Sometimes “Blind” is Better!

Why would you want your own expert to go “blind”?  It seems like an outrageous question, until you realize that a “blind review” is often key to obtaining a fair, prospective, expert analysis.  Traditional thinking among the defense bar is the more informed the medical expert, the less vulnerable he will be to cross examination and the greater he will shine in front of a jury, but sometimes, just the opposite is true.

Consider the typical radiology case.  Without a blind review, CT scans, MRIs and other studies may fall prey to a “Where’s Waldo?” approach to litigation. No matter how obscure the finding, once it’s made known, it becomes obvious!  We have all experienced this phenomenon in everyday life, and legal experts are no different.  To be sure, when a reviewing expert knows the final outcome before rendering his opinion, there is an inherent bias and misapplication of the standard of care.

We encourage the following to combat this litigation problem:

  1. Obtain “blind reviews” of your case by potential expert witnesses to ensure a fair, unbiased review; and
  2. Expose the failure of plaintiff’s experts to perform blind reviews and, as a result, the application of an inappropriate standard of care.
The blind review is, overall, a relatively simple tool to be used by defense counsel in just about every medical malpractice case.  The potential benefit in terms of jury appeal is huge, and we think it is clear that sometimes, Blind is Better!
Larry Waranch

Larry Waranch

Larry Waranch is an AV rated trial lawyer and a founding partner of Waranch & Brown. His practice focuses primarily on medical malpractice defense, medical licensure matters, administrative defense and general liability.
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email