A primer for urologists on statutes of limitations

As the year comes to a close, we revisit some of this year’s top content on benign prostatic hyperplasia.

“Their opinions do need to be credible and be honest, but there is some component of being able to walk a line between providing a candid, unbiased opinion, and knowing that you are retained to represent a specific side in that case,” says Kenton H. Steele, Esq.

"Effective cross-examination can create an implication that an expert’s opinions are motivated by bias or self-interest, rather than a neutral evaluation of the facts. This is frequently accomplished by highlighting the fact that experts are paid for time spent reviewing a case and testifying," writes Kenton H. Steele, Esq.

“I think it's the responsibility of the physician to really take on educating and counseling and setting clear expectations and that way, when complications do arise, patients are better equipped, and they have a more favorable outcome,” says Ariana Matz, MD.

"Cross-examination offers the other side the opportunity to poke holes in the witness’s story contemporaneously, helping the jury evaluate the credibility of the witness in real time," writes Kenton H. Steele, Esq.

"To form a connection between the witness and the jury and establish the witness’ credibility, the witness needs to be the star," writes Austin M. Richards, Esq.