“Residents Aren’t Real Doctors”: A Real Juror Problem

During our political focus groups, one of the ways we uncover subtle prejudices is to ask voters if they believe their neighbor would vote for a minority/female/gay/pro-choice candidate.  Oftentimes, voters reluctant to admit their own biases will say something along the lines of, “Well, I don’t have a problem with _____, but I don’t think my neighbor would ever vote for something like that.”

The same holds true for juror feelings on resident doctors.  Although jurors like the idea of teaching hospitals and residents in theory, when it comes to being treated by one they balk.

We see jurors all over the country refer to residents as “students,” “rookies,” “trainees” and, most troublingly, “not real doctors.”  Since residents are oftentimes involved in the care provided at the center of the cases we work on, this can be a real problem.

An analysis of our focus group case history shows exactly how damaging this anti-resident bias is to the defense.  Cases involving a resident (or fellow) were 1.5 times more likely to return a plaintiff verdict than cases that did not.  These cases involving a resident returned a plaintiff verdict 58.8% of the time, as opposed to non-resident cases, which returned a plaintiff verdict only 37.8% of the time.

Case Verdicts

These numbers show experience and training matter to jurors, especially when it comes to patient safety.  Jurors often have unrealistic expectations of care, and having a “trainee” or “student” doctor providing care falls below those expectations.  They often believe an experienced attending might have made different decisions – especially in a “high-risk” situation – even if the evidence shows an attending doctor approved the treatment plan.

So how does one overcome this negative perception regarding residents’ experience and training?  We suggest discussing just that – their experience and training.

An expert witness (who works as an attending) discussing the role of residents and their training could be a helpful way to mitigate the bias if you have a resident involved in your case.  For first- or second-year residents, the expert can emphasize the number of years spent in medical school, the number of clinical rotations they participated in prior to receiving their license and the attending-resident relationship.  For third- and fourth-year residents, it will be helpful to highlight the 80 hours per week of experience they have accumulated during their residency, the number of patients they have treated and any accolades they have received.

Depending on the situation, the resident doctor him- or herself may be able to assuage jurors’ concerns.  Most residents will be seasoned attendings by the time a lawsuit makes it to trial, and the defense may benefit from seeing first-hand the doctor’s maturity, confidence and experience.  The resident can also reassure jurors that he or she closely consulted the attending at all times.

Finally, we always suggest trying to turn negatives into positives.  Often in the same breath jurors express concern about resident doctors’ lack of experience, we have also consistently heard praise for their enthusiasm, listening skills and up-to-date training.  “They know all the latest medicine and understand the new technology,” one juror told us recently.  “Those are huge advantages over an old-timer who thinks he knows everything.”

We have found negative biases such as those about resident doctors can be overcome if you identify them early and address them directly.  Whether you’re concerned about negative juror predispositions or would like consultation on another aspect of your case, feel free to contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at 714-754-1010 or cluna@juryimpact.net.