|
The firm is pleased to welcome Steve Six as a principal and shareholder.
Steve is a 1993 graduate of the University of Kansas School of
Law where he was number two in his class, an editor on the law
review, and received several academic honors and scholarships.
Steve began his career at the firm in 1995, following a clerkship
with the Honorable Deanell R. Tacha, on the Tenth Circuit Court
of Appeals. Steve is licensed in Kansas and Missouri, where he
has tried medical malpractice and automobile negligence cases,
most recently obtaining a $5,000,000 judgment in a trucking accident
case in southwest Missouri. In addition to his trial work,
|
Steve has handled appeals for the firm before the United States
Supreme Court, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the appellate
courts in Missouri and Kansas.
Steve has many interests in the areas of tort law and has published
articles on the subject of expert testimony and product liability
in national trial magazines and bar journals. He is active
Steve Six
|
in the local bar organizations having served on committees with
the Kansas City Metropolitan Bar Association and the Johnson County
Bar Association. Steve has also participated in service activities
with the Earl O'Connor Inn of Court and the Kansas Trial Lawyers
Association.
Steve will continue to handle automobile, medical malpractice,
product liability and other personal injury actions on behalf
of plaintiffs in Kansas, Missouri and nationally.
We all welcome Steve to his new role at our firm and wish him
more of the success which he has experienced throughout his life.
|
|
Isn't it surprising how some witnesses have absolutely no memory
of events that were unusual, dramatic, or catastrophic? In medical
malpractice cases, those healthcare providers who were witnesses
to what occurred, or whose actions or inactions are being criticized,
so often cannot remember anything about the events, except what
is in the records. While such memory lapses can frustrate the
search for truth, there are some strategies we recommend in response
to such forgetfulness.
At the outset of the deposition, do a “memory triage”
—determine: (1) what can the witness remember independent
of the records? (2) to what extent must the witness rely solely
on the
|
medical records for the facts? and (3) what does the witness
claim occurred “based upon what I normally do in that situation?”
The First Category
What is actually remembered —is the one that can hurt your
case the most, because virtually anything can be said in the name
of memory that supports the theory of the defense. On the other
hand, by acknowledging independent memory of the events, the witness
is now open to cross-examination about all of the facts, and if
the “memory” is not accurate or factual, the defense
will be vulnerable to those severe penalties that juries attach
to such testimony. The cross-examination of the witness who claims
memory of the events may also elicit collateral information helpful
to the plaintiff's theory of the case.
|
The Second Category
The witness whose memory is limited to what is in the record
—is a mixed bag as well. While factual discovery beyond what
is in the medical records will be frustrated, the plaintiff's
case will not usually be hurt, because the plaintiff's expert
evaluation of the case is usually based on what is in the records.
If the case does not have merit and is not winnable based on the
documentation in the records, it should not have been filed in
the first place.
The Last Category
“I am sure I did what I normally do” —may be interjected
into the testimony either by the witness who wants to fill in
the gaps in the recorded facts in a way that exonerates the
continued on page
5
|
