Clearly the hospital and the medical community are disappointed in the outcome of this case. The comments make it sound as if the patient and her attorney got together with the judge and jury to decide the outcome. You realize, do you not, that Dr. Goodman had very capable and competent lawyers with him every step of the way who presented the very best defense they could?
Both parties were represented by counsel, and had one or more physicians in the same specialty as expert witnesses to give their opinions to the jury as to what a reasonably prudent physician should or should not do under the same or similar circumstances. The judge made sure there was a fair trial, and instructed the jury as to the applicable law. The jury heard all the evidence presented by BOTH sides, and then determined the facts in accordance with the law given by the judge.
The jury was not asked, and did not make a determination, whether he was a "good doctor" or a "bad doctor". The question they decided was whether or not he complied with the minimum standards of acceptable practice under the circumstances in this case, and in this case only. Obviously the jury, after hearing the evidence and arguments presented BY BOTH SIDES, decided that he did not.
It is the same with damages. Both sides present the facts and testimony for the jury to consider in determining the damages. The judge instructed the jury as to the law of damages that may be recovered. If the jury did not follow the law, or if there were no facts to support the damages, then the judge will correct it after the judgment is entered.
They both had their day in court. And by the way... appeals don't get 'granted' and someone does not get a 'do-over' just because they are unhappy with the outcome. In order to be successful on appeal, he has to show that the judge made on error of law that affected the jury's verdict, or that there was no evidence to support the verdict.
Hamilton County: Jury awards $12 million in malpractice case
Clearly the hospital and the medical community are disappointed in the outcome of this case. The comments make it sound as if the patient and her attorney got together with the judge and jury to decide the outcome. You realize, do you not, that Dr. Goodman had very capable and competent lawyers with him every step of the way who presented the very best defense they could?
Both parties were represented by counsel, and had one or more physicians in the same specialty as expert witnesses to give their opinions to the jury as to what a reasonably prudent physician should or should not do under the same or similar circumstances. The judge made sure there was a fair trial, and instructed the jury as to the applicable law. The jury heard all the evidence presented by BOTH sides, and then determined the facts in accordance with the law given by the judge.
The jury was not asked, and did not make a determination, whether he was a "good doctor" or a "bad doctor". The question they decided was whether or not he complied with the minimum standards of acceptable practice under the circumstances in this case, and in this case only. Obviously the jury, after hearing the evidence and arguments presented BY BOTH SIDES, decided that he did not.
It is the same with damages. Both sides present the facts and testimony for the jury to consider in determining the damages. The judge instructed the jury as to the law of damages that may be recovered. If the jury did not follow the law, or if there were no facts to support the damages, then the judge will correct it after the judgment is entered.
They both had their day in court. And by the way... appeals don't get 'granted' and someone does not get a 'do-over' just because they are unhappy with the outcome. In order to be successful on appeal, he has to show that the judge made on error of law that affected the jury's verdict, or that there was no evidence to support the verdict.
It is time for some of you to grow up.