Medical Malpractice (JD/MD) Forum

[kings84_wr]

I don't think it will have any bearing on your ability to practice med mal, or really even to attract clients. I'm no med-mal expert, but its all based on standard of care. You don't need to prove the doctor messed up, you need to prove the doctor messed up worse than other doctors, or did something other doctors don't do, or failed to do something other doctors would have done. The standard of care is always changing, and is very specialty specific, and even regionally specific (although shifting towards a national standard). Without lots of practical field experience in the same specialty, around the same time, and possibly in the same region, you won't really have any more guidance in picking clients than an ordinary lawyer would.

What I was referring to was that I would actually know which cases were Med Mal. You can't subpoena until you file a case, so how can I get expert opinion if I don't have the records for an expert to look at, or to get the expertise for cases I don't plan on filing? Yes, I can have an in-house MD or go to guy for all of this, but how can I rely on having experts look at 100s of cases I don't plan on taking, or to pick the right ones for me? I mean but Med School ain't gonna do that for me neither, lol. I guess it will have to come from repetition,

I am talking about a solo practice & I wouldn't necessarily want to spend my resources on experts for cases I won't take in the first place, unless I know there is something there where me paying for experts will pay off

I'm not sure you need to subpoena to get information. I'm not positive about this, but I suspect most of the medical records you would need to decide to pursue a case can just be requested by your client under HIPAA

Exactly - the provider has to give the medical records pre-suit (though sometimes they still delay like crazy). The one medmal case I've done, we obtained all the medical records. We then hired experts pre-suit and had them draft reports before we filed (mostly because of the requirements in our state for expert reports).

[jefflowenthal]

The JD/MD dual degree can be extremely useful for medical malpractice practice. It is not necessary, but those who have a medical background most certainly have a leg up on other folks who are just getting started in the area. Medical malpractice is an extremely complex area, and if you already know the medicine, it can be very helpful. I recommend that if you want to get a JD/MD that you get the MD first. The MD takes longer and is, frankly, much more difficult.

Let the energy of youth help you through the incredibly long hours, especially if you plan on going through a residency. Then go and get your JD. You cannot attend law school and med school at the same time, unless you attend a school which specifically offers that joint degree. It is simply impossible to otherwise manage the course load or the schedule. The good news is that there is such a thing as a joint JD/MD and you might consider looking into that.

For example, both Duke University School of Law and Penn offer this joint degree. Another option is to consider a nursing degree, which will still provide you with a solid background in medication. Not that getting a nursing degree is easy, by any stretch, but it does not take quite as long as an MD and it is not quite as expensive. Yes, you also might consider simply taking classes to help you learn about medicine. There are continuing education seminars for lawyers that you can take which might give you some of the knowledge you seek. Obviously, they are not the same as an MD or a RN.

[radio1nowhere]

Comparing a first-year attorney with an MD to a first-year attorney without an MD: sure, you might get a small but nonzero boost from the MD.

But since doing a joint JD/MD is going to cost you three more (non-earning) years, you should really be comparing a first-year attorney with an MD to a fourth-year attorney without an MD: I can't imagine being better off in the first scenario, especially given the fact that you would be in significantly more debt. And solo practice medmal is far from a surefire way to make a bunch of money to pay off that debt, to say the least.

I would say that if you're qualified enough to get into med school and interested enough to actually do it, you should just be a doctor and forget the JD. Much safer route to getting a good job with good money. If you'd only be forcing yourself through med school to get the other side and start doing medmal, just do the JD and use those extra three years to gain whatever experience you need to be a good medmal attorney without racking up more debt.