$I Billion for Injured New Yorkers
Our Results
  • $30.1 Million NYC - Medical Malpractice Case
  • $15 Million Manhattan - Medical Malpractice Case
  • $3 Million Queens - Wrongful Death Case
  • $5.5 Million Bronx - Birth Injury Accident
  • $30.1 Million NYC - Medical Malpractice Case
  • $15 Million Manhattan - Medical Malpractice Case
  • $3 Million Queens - Wrongful Death Case
  • $5.5 Million Bronx - Birth Injury Accident
  • $7.75 Million NYC - Medical Malpractice Case
Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolff, LLP
Experienced & Trusted Medical Malpractice Lawyers
Call today for a Free Consultation
Serving the greater NYC Area: Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx & Staten Island

Does the Doctor have to Answer Questions Based on Assumed Facts

Should the Doctor Answer Questions that are Based on Assumed Facts

In a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff's lawyer is questioning the doctor during a deposition, and he asks the doctor to assume a certain set of facts to be true. The doctor interrupts the lawyer, and says he does not agree that the facts are true. Does the doctor have to answer the lawyer's hypothetical question when he disagrees with the lawyer's set of facts?

The answer is yes, the doctor has to answer the question. According to the law, the plaintiff's lawyer is permitted to ask hypothetical questions during the pretrial questions and answers session known as a deposition. The deposition session takes place in the attorney's office, in the presence of a court reporter, and the answers are given under oath.

At this deposition, the attorney will ask the doctor to assume certain facts to be true, and then answer the questions asked. The lawyer will go ahead a give the doctor a list of facts that he believes is true. After that the lawyer will ask the doctor hypothetical questions.

The Doctor is Obligated to Answer

For instance, the lawyer can ask, "Assuming the following facts are true, then would not treating a patient using this procedure would be a violation of the basic standards of medical care?" "Yes or no?" Now what if the doctor rather than going along with the assumed facts turns around and says that he disagrees with the set of facts and what the purpose of this question.

What should the plaintiff's lawyer do in such a situation? Should he change the set of facts, or should he argue with the doctor? The answer is no, the plaintiff's lawyer does not have to do any of these things, as the doctor is required and obligated by law to answer the questions as they are phrased. The plaintiff's lawyer might change the facts a little bit, if the doctor keeps objecting to them, but ultimately the doctor's attorney will tell him that he has to assume the set of facts to be true and answer the questions accordingly.

It does not matter if the fundamental structure of the question is vehemently opposed by the doctor.

Why Use Hypothetical Questioning?

The purpose of such a line of questioning is that the plaintiff's lawyer is using those facts that he believes to be true, which will be proved by the evidence and testimonies that will come later during the trial. This means that if these facts are proven true later and the jury finds them to be true, then the lawyer would want to hear it in the doctor's own word that treating the patient in this way was a violation of the basic standards of medical care.

The important aspect is the lawyer will be using the doctor's own words, which will be extremely powerful to the jury. Based on this reasoning, if ultimately at trial, the jury believes the plaintiff's side of the facts, then the lawyer can show to the jury the doctor's pretrial testimony where he has acknowledged and admitted that treating the patient in this particular way was definitely a departure from good and accepted standards of medical care.

In other words, if the doctor does not agree with the plaintiff's set of facts, it is fine, but he still has to answer the lawyer's question. The point is to get to the truth and there is more than one way to get there. The doctor should be expecting this strategy as well since his attorney should have told him to expect this line of questioning.

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information

Learn About Medical Malpractice Cases in NYC

Watch all videos »

Listen to our clients

Watch all videos »

Case of the month

$7,750,000 Recovery Due to Negligent Care in NYC Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Our client, a 5-year-old patient, receives almost $8 million in compensation from an NYC hospital in a medical malpractice claim won by Rosenberg, Minc, Falkoff & Wolf. Representing the injured child with his team of legal and medical experts, Daniel Minc said, "It was great day for the family."

The case involved negligent care on the part of the hospital pediatric intensive care unit for failing to observe bleeding from a simple biopsy wound which caused neurological damage.

Medical Malpractice Blog

$25 million verdict against New York Methodist Hospital
When a child is born, parents expect the doctor, nurses and other staff to provide care that is up to the...
Read This Malpractice Post

Experienced & Trusted medical malpractice lawyers

  • Top Lawyers 2016
  • Litigator Awards
  • Verdicts and Settlement Hall of Fame
  • BBB Accredited Business | A+
  • Avvo Rating 10.0 Superb | Top Attorney Medical Malpractice
  • Rated By Super Lawyers | Daniel C. Minc | 5 years
Call 1-866-516-5887 or email us to set up your free, confidential consultation. Our experience can make a difference for you.

Office Locations - Call today to schedule a consultation 1-866-516-5887

16 Court Street
Brooklyn, NY 11241

Brooklyn Law Office

3101 Broadway
Astoria, NY 11106

Astoria Law Office

8900 Sutphin Blvd
Suite 501
Queens, NY 11435

Queens Law Office

9201 4th Ave
Brooklyn, NY 11209

Brooklyn Law Office

Firm News

Robert H. Wolff Named President
Firm Attorney, Robert H. Wolff is now the president of the New York City Bronx County Bar Association
About This Attorney

Back to Top