Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases Jim and Carrie Carroll at Carroll and Carroll, P.C. represent the injured people of Pennsylvania and New York in Bradford, Sullivan, Tioga, Susquehanna, and Chemung counties in personal injury, premises liability, slip and fall, automobile accident and workers’ compensation cases

Practice Areas


Blog

Personal Injury

view all

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

view all

Workers' Compensation

view all

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

view all

General

view all

Legal News

Judge campaign candidates speak at dinner in Towanda

Judge Beirne unopposed in local race

Attorney General Tom Corbett to visit Bradford County

Beirne will run for full term as judge

Bias in Peer Review

Bradford County Employers Laying Off Workers

Death Benefits Not Mandatory for PA Car Insurance

Bradford County: Judge Beirne presiding

Armenia bans ATVs

Pennsylvania Senate confirms Beirne as Bradford County judge

View All

Legal Library

Personal Injury

More Info

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall

More Info

Workers' Compensation

More Info

Vehicle and Automobile Accidents

More Info

Newsletters

More Info

General

More Info

Blog Category:

Personal Injury

    6/2/2008
    James R. Carroll, Jr., Esquire
    Comments (0)

    When a medical expert testifies "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty"...what does that really mean?

    In the case of Griffin v University of Pittsburgh, which is a May 19, 2008, Superior Court case, the court held that when a physician testifies that there was a 51-49% probability that the negligent act caused the injury, this was legally insufficient to offer an opinion to a “reasonable degree of medical certainty.” Most medical experts spit out the phrase “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” without actually defining its meaning or actually knowing what it truly means.  It does not mean "maybe" or "probably" or "might be" or any of those equivocal phrases.  However, it DOES not mean 100 % assurances.  The court doesn't actually give a specific percentage, but it has to be more than in this case.  Although I have no support for this, if a medical expert said they were more than 85% certain, I'd wager lunch that this would be enough for most appellate courts. 

    Therefore, if you have a defense doctor who is a little less sure of the opinion he/she is offering, but also uses the magic language ask him/her to put a percentage on it. You might get lucky! The doctor could give some kind of split percentage as in this case and you can argue that based upon the Griffin case, the opinion is legally insufficient.

    I've also posted this at the Pa Work Injury Law blog here.

Premises Liability: The Slip and Fall