Comments on: Harris v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center: Geoffrey Fieger loses http://overlawyered.com/2007/10/harris-v-mt-sinai-medical-center-geoffrey-fieger-loses/ Chronicling the high cost of our legal system Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:26:11 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Judges to doctors’ rescue? http://overlawyered.com/2007/10/harris-v-mt-sinai-medical-center-geoffrey-fieger-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-17169 Judges to doctors’ rescue? Sun, 25 May 2008 04:55:36 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5490#comment-17169 [...] least some doctors are hoping to discern such a trend on the strength of two data points: the case Ted has covered in which the Ohio Supreme Court struck down a $30 million verdict because of the shenanigans of [...] [...] least some doctors are hoping to discern such a trend on the strength of two data points: the case Ted has covered in which the Ohio Supreme Court struck down a $30 million verdict because of the shenanigans of [...]

]]> By: rbnn http://overlawyered.com/2007/10/harris-v-mt-sinai-medical-center-geoffrey-fieger-loses/comment-page-1/#comment-9409 rbnn Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:44:43 +0000 http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=5490#comment-9409 The court opinion, <a href="http://fortunelegalpad.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/2007-ohio-55871.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://fortunelegalpad.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/2007-ohio-55871.pdf</a> , is suspect. The court states "The trial court also found that counsel exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy by accusing the witnesses for the defense of 'prevarication' and making this a theme for his entire case despite having no evidence of cover-up." This sentence is illogical. A person may prevaricate without engaging in a cover-up. Prevarication as applied to witness may simply refer to equivocation, quibbling or even tergiversation. It seems to me that the appellate court just didn't know what "prevarication" was. Thinking it met "lying" or "cover-up", they wrongly sanctioned counsel for his use of that word. The court opinion, http://fortunelegalpad.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/2007-ohio-55871.pdf , is suspect.

The court states “The trial court also found that counsel exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy by accusing the witnesses for the defense of ‘prevarication’ and making this a theme for his entire case despite having no evidence of cover-up.”

This sentence is illogical. A person may prevaricate without engaging in a cover-up. Prevarication as applied to witness may simply refer to equivocation, quibbling or even tergiversation.

It seems to me that the appellate court just didn’t know what “prevarication” was. Thinking it met “lying” or “cover-up”, they wrongly sanctioned counsel for his use of that word.

]]>