Monthly Archives: February 2013

I know one good reason why there is a statute of limitations, and it has nothing to do with the law.

It has to do with human nature. Apparently, most of us were born with a dominant procrastination gene that expresses itself at every opportunity. Given the option of infinity, how long do you think some people would wait to file a claim? Just count the number of times someone calls us and declares “the statute is tolling!” (i.e., the sky is falling).

Why is it tolling? Most often, the deadline is looming because the claimant waited until the last minute to find an attorney, or the attorney waited until the last minute to address merit, or the expert took too long to review the records and prepare an affidavit, or in general, life happened and it is human nature to save the hardest work for last.

We have a statute of limitations because someone had to take control of this gene.
We have final exams because without them, most students would study for the immediacy of one test rather than retain the data for a “final” test. Trust me on this; I have four children.

There is a time to punch the clock, a time beyond which we are tardy, an alarm clock that awakens us, and a snooze button that apologizes for waking us up.

I need deadlines. I do. I need goals and objectives because without them, I am at sea. If I find it difficult to prioritize work or decide what onerous task needs doing first, I can let deadlines be my guide. But I always know that what I am really doing is finding a rational reason to put off until tomorrow what I should have done yesterday.

Jurors are called upon to make incredibly important decisions, and while they may be instructed to “stick to the facts”, those facts can be difficult to parse out. Both sides will argue for their client, and they will use every weapon from accusation to rationalization to “make their case”.

A good trial attorney knows that keeping it simple is best; that is why they pick a “theme”, a central point around which to build their case, independent of how many people are being fingered for wrongdoing. The theme should be constant: “This man would be alive today but for the negligence of xyz in monitoring basic vital signs.”

Behind this simple statement is an extremely complex and highly developed game plan geared towards subtly asking jurors to apply their own sense of right and wrong to their decision. Once the facts are clearly laid out, and all has been presented to them, jurors are asked to make difficult choices independent of personal morality (but who can really do that?).

I have talked about clinical nurses serving as testifying expert witnesses, and legal nurse consultants working behind the scenes to analyze medical records and develop a case. In many states, there is a third way to become involved in the legal world of healthcare, and that is choosing to serve as a fact witness about your review of medical records.

In this role, you take what you know about a medical situation and explain it to the jurors in a way that makes sense to them. You are not testifying against another healthcare provider; you are merely relaying the information found in the record, and explaining the more complex medical issues to jurors as lay people. This sounds a lot like talking to family members in the hospital, and in a way it is.

You are not rendering an opinion; you are informing, and your information can help clear the fog of legal arguments in the minds of those oh-so important jurors.