- Professional Negligence;
- Personal Injury in matters not related to professional negligence;
- Workers Compensation;
- Family law issues where health or quality of care is in question;
- Medicare/SSI/SSDI benefit issues;
- Healthcare professional board disciplinary action investigation; or even
- Opposing Party testifying expert vetting reports.
MarGin offers Standard of Care reviews and causation evaluations within the parameters of Cleveland ex rel. Cleveland v. US, 457 F.3d 397 (5th Cir. 2006) which states in relevant part:
Wanda Poret (“Poret”), a [C]ertified [L]egal [N]urse [C]onsultant, was prepared to testify on Cleveland’s behalf that the BJACH employees deviated from the acceptable standard of care by neglecting to take a chest film and failing to diagnose congestive heart failure. In her report, she opined that had Samuel been treated for congestive heart failure on his initial visit, his subsequent deterioration could have been prevented. The United States objected to her admission as an expert witness, arguing that, as a nurse, she was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care owed by physician assistant Eubanks. The district court excluded her testimony without a written memorandum of reasons for the ruling.
The court went on to rule:
Poret’s written report focused exclusively on the failure of the physician assistant at BJACH to meet the requisite standard of care. In her opposition to the United States’ motion to exclude Poret’s testimony, Cleveland attempted to argue that Poret was qualified to read and explicate the “chronology of care” Samuel received at BJACH, as Poret possesses a Bachelors Degree in Nursing and is a Certified Legal Nurse Consultant. However, this argument is inapposite given the content of her report. As a nurse, Poret is not qualified to testify as to a physician’s standard of care or the standard of care governing a physician assistant who stands in the place of the treating physician.See Broussard, 921 So.2d at 132 (stating the rule that only physicians qualified in a particular medical field may testify as to the standard of care owed by physicians in that specialty). The district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Poret’s testimony as she was not qualified to testify as to the standard of care applicable to a physician assistant. Id. at 405.
MarGin Consulting, LLC has a better approach. We search for an expert for your case from scratch. We conduct an independent search for each expert and each case, we have no subscribers, and we do not maintain an ongoing relationship with any experts. Our process is geared to discovery and vetting of matter matched experts with full transparency and discretion. And, since our experts are university professors in full-time clinical practice, or selected for their dual credentialing, our clients are assured of top-tier credentials from a true expert.
There are any number nurse consultants and self-proclaimed expert “referral services” who refer attorneys to experts in their database. It is MarGin’s contention that these databases are flawed for several reasons. Firstly; these databases are limited to expert with whom the referring nurse or service has an ongoing relationship. This reduces the likelihood that a recommended expert is actually chosen for her/his expertise in addressing your fact pattern. The “experts” sometimes pay a listing fee in exchange for the referral, while in other cases the referring agent bills a surcharge over the expert’s actual fee in order to monetize the process. All this while the referral service builds a list of experts ready to opine on any case. Additionally; these experts chosen from databases are often not vetted for their ability to withstand a challenge based upon your fact pattern. In some cases, owing to only minimal familiarity with statutory and appellate law, conflicts are not adequately investigated or identified.
MarGin Consulting, LLC uses a proprietary 10 point questionnaire developed based upon discussions with and research by attorneys from across the United States. MarGin has distilled the approach to substantive challenges to experts to these questions and instruct each expert selected by our clients on how to prepare for these challenges.
Much is made of Daubert, and rightly so; however, Daubert progeny in Kumho and Joiner cannot be dismissed. Additionally, each jurisdiction has its own appellate rulings regarding experts and their opinions and testimony. We respectfully ask you to inquire about the “gatekeeper” rulings and statutes in your jurisdiction when investigating an expert location service. The answers may surprise you.
As a part of our expert vetting process MarGin screens more than 200,000 published and unpublished appellate decisions in just one investigative database to identify successful substantive challenges. This, in addition to our significant investigative capabilities will help assure that your MarGin recommended expert witnesses will be available throughout your case’s life.