Dr. Matthew Lee, MD, RPh, MS. is a Physician, Pharmacist, Pharmacologist and Toxicologist who also practices as an Expert Witness and Legal Strategy Consultant. Specific Benefits Include:
Increased quality and integrity of written expert reports, based on an expanded knowledge base
Time savings by only having to coordinate and discuss a case with one expert as opposed to two or more
Since there is so much overlap between fields in the medical profession it is often hard to determine where one scope ends and another begins. This ambiguity is dramatically decreased , and scope increased by combining physician, pharmacist, and pharmacologist into one
Communication skills of a pharmacist and experience dealing directly with the lay-public, in addition to the knowledge and background of a physician is extremely beneficial describing technical details to a jury
Practicing in different realms within the healthcare field has allowed Dr. Lee to integrate the multiple facets giving him a unique and distinct perspective that no other expert has.
Case Experience Includes:
Criminal and Civil Cases
Pharmacist Dispensing Errors
Pharmacy Standard of Care
Medication Adverse Effects
Falls Related to Medications (in and out of hospital)
Dilaudid is a commonly used opioid narcotic analgesic in hospitals due to its potency and effectiveness in the management of acute pain. On occasion, patients may be administered too much Dilaudid resulting in an overdose.
Eric M. Orenstein, MD, is a board-certified fellowship-trained Orthopedic Surgeon specializing in Hip and Knee Replacement Surgery. In practice for 32 years, he is a Clinical Assistant Professor in Orthopedic Surgery at the Indiana University School of Medicine, teaching residents and medical students.
Dr. Orenstein has been an active member of Indiana University Hospital's Surgery Standards Committee for several years. He is ABIME certified for Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs). Dr. Orenstein has been on several state review panels for potential medical malpractice claims and has performed over 100 file reviews including disability reviews and utilization reviews. Dr. Orenstein has provided opinions, deposition testimony and trial testimony in a number of medical malpractice cases.
Mark A. Smith, MD, MBA, FACS, FACHE, CPHQ, is an independent senior Healthcare Consultant and a Practicing Vascular Surgeon as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Surgery at the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Smith previously served as the Chief Medical Officer with Morrisey Associates Inc/ Morcare LLC for six years. He is a member of HG Healthcare Consultants LLC. Dr. Smith brings over 30 years of clinical practice and hospital management experiences to his work with physicians and hospitals across the United States. He is Board Certified in Vascular Surgery and is a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Healthcare Executives. He is a member of the American College of Physician Executives, the Society for Vascular Surgery and the Southern California Vascular Surgical Society. Litigation Support - Dr. Smith provides expert witness services to attorneys representing plaintiff and defendant. His decades of clinical practice as a surgeon and multiple roles in senior hospital administration to his work on peer review, credentialing, ED call, and other matters involving physicians and hospitals across the United States. He has testified several times in the past 5 years. Areas of Expertise:
Michael F. Arrigo is the Managing Partner, Healthcare Practice for No World Borders. They work with health systems, health IT companies, and health plans. His recent retentions have been by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) - drug pricing, patent infringement, medical coding and billing, and Qui Tam False Claims Act and fraud case specialties.
Mr. Arrigo has in-depth experience in HIPAA mandates, the HITECH Act and Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and is a published author and regular speaker. He consults to clients including Health IT investors, Health IT companies, and health plans and hospital systems in matters regarding:
HIPAA Privacy Rule, HIPAA Security Rule, HIPAA Breaches, Revenue Cycle Management, Hospital Liens in Personal Injury Cases without considering insurance as a collateral source.
Quality Measures for Medicare Advantage Hospital Value-Based Purchasing
Medicare Advantage HEDIS 5-Star Ratings for Health Plans Mr. Arrigo was recently quoted in the Wall Street Journal Venture Capital Dispatch regarding medical coding standards and Wall Street Journal Health Blog regarding venture-backed information-technology companies that serve hospitals and health insurers.
Thank you for viewing my profile. Please click this link to view my CV.
Clinical documentation improvement (CDI) initiatives are underway in healthcare organizations across the country, with the aims of improving care and reducing costs. Are they working? At least one such initiative, at Baptist Health South Florida, is providing solid return on investment.
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D. is double Board-Certified in Psychiatry and Forensic Psychiatry. Dr. Raffle has over 49 years as a clinical and forensic psychiatrist offering his expert opinion in Federal and State jurisdictions nationwide. In addition to serving as an expert witness, Dr. Raffle consults to attorneys, judges, insurers, and to employers regarding Fitness for Duty and Risk of Violence (Threat) Assessment:
5000+ psychiatric assessments
Expert testimony in 700 depositions and trials
Successful clinical practice
The job of an expert witness is to educate a jury, judge, attorney, and trier of fact about the forensic psychiatrist's conclusions and how those opinions were derived in a manner well-reasoned, skillful, and easily understood by every person, not only another forensic psychiatrist. In short, an educator. Dr. Raffle’s experience as an educator extends well beyond a forensic venue, yet underpins the key to his ability to explain his opinions.
Prof. of Psychiatry, UCSF Medical School, 20 years
U.C. Hastings College of the Law postgraduate course "Trial and Appellate Advocacy" instructing seasoned attorneys about the direct and cross-examination of expert witnesses, with special focus on mental health experts and licensed medical professionals, Psychiatrists (MDs), Psychologists (LCSWs / MFTs), and physicians in other medical specialties, 11 years
Stephen M. Raffle, M.D. & Associates' expertise is well-established in forensic assessment in the areas of:
In order for a medical opinion to be admissible as evidence in civil, criminal and administrative cases, the basis of the opinion must fulfill either the Daubert Criteria or the Frye test, depending on the jurisdiction. The judge of the court rules on the admissibility of the expert opinion. The effect of Daubert has been to limit expert testimony to opinions which are based on a scientific foundation. Daubert specifies that adequate scientific support and method and a known error rate must exist. The testimony of a mental health expert rendering an opinion using criteria which does not meet Daubert standards is weakened by the implication that it is not based on "sound science." In some instances, for example, a mental health expert uses an approach where there are no peer-reviewed studies or methods, such as when psychologists compose their own neuropsychological test batteries. In most cases where an attorney is considering a "Daubert challenge," a contemporaneous and up-to-date literature search is indicated. Also, extensive case law presently exists as to specific issues. Being familiar with the Daubert criteria enhances effectiveness in challenging a mental health expert's opinion, whether on voir dire or cross examination. On direct examination, the strengths of an opinion reached under Daubert criteria become a "teaching moment" for the trier of fact, because it will be founded on the science of mental health assessment.
Undue influence occurs when the testator's freewill and freedom of choice in the disposition of the assets of his or her estate is replaced by the substituted judgment/wishes of another. This can apply to creating a will, codicil to amend a will, trust or other legal instrument.
The medical expert cannot express an opinion about the ultimate question to the trier of fact: how much is the plaintiff's emotional distress (emotional injury) worth in dollars? Yet when the question of these monetary damages is put to a jury, their deliberations are better-served if considered in the context of a Forensic Psychiatrist's knowledgeable findings and testimony.
My teacher and mentor, Dr. Bernard Diamond, pondered the question about the role of the psychiatric expert and other experts in the courtroom. My first public presentation was to the American Criminology Society on this topic, and it has continued to occupy my attention to the present
All psychiatric reports evaluate something, but not always the same thing. For example, eligibility for benefits, or fitness to do a job. To make sense of the report, the reader must determine what is being evaluated and how it is being done
In civil cases where emotional distress is alleged, it often occurs that the plaintiff’s attorney designates the treater as his expert. Usually the argument is that the plaintiff’s own therapist has spent many more hours with the plaintiff than the defense expert and therefore "knows" the plaintiff better. The treater often agrees with this reasoning