Virtually all medical malpractice cases turn on expert testimony. If the conflicting testimony by the expert witnesses called by the plaintiff and the defendant meets proper thresholds, a jury will be called on to decide which expert to believe. But even a well-qualified physician cannot utter just any words to get a case to the jury.

Determining when a plaintiff must act to sue a healthcare provider is a topic of longstanding interest in California’s courts. A featured case adds a twist: Does a patient suing a subsequent treating physician get additional time to sue?

The Court of Appeal has told a health plan, in effect, “not so fast” after the plan refused to consider a surgeon’s attempt to correct an initial coding error after an alleged emergency surgery.

In reinstating a lawsuit brought by a group of therapists and counselors, the California Supreme Court cleared the way for a show of evidence over which approach best serves the goal of curtailing the demand for online child pornography: The opportunity to effectively treat patients who possess and view such material, or mandatory disclosure to law enforcement authorities when a patient tells a therapist of such behavior.

Remember the exam-taking advice telling you to go with your first impression if no other answer seems to fit? Fast forward to your clinical practice today and that advice may still apply: At the least, be sure to follow through on your original suspicions when assessing a patient’s complaints. If you don’t, you’ve only helped a plaintiff attorney write his or her trial argument.