“I am a Harvard cardiologist who is frequently asked to consult and testify in medical-legal cases.
On a number of occasions over the last 15 years, I have been asked to consult on complex medical malpractice cases for Winer, Burritt and Scott, LLP. I am very conservative in my approach to consulting on malpractice cases. No matter which side in a case chooses to consult with me, I always give my honest opinions of the merits of a case. Some attorneys appreciate this approach, others do not.
My experience with John Winer is that he is one of the exceptional plaintiff’s attorneys who wants to know whether or not his potential case has merit rather than most attorneys who want me to testify to their side of the case, even if they are on the wrong side. I am always impressed at how well Mr. Winer understands the complex medical issues and has done his research before we even have had our initial consultation on the case. He takes the time to learn the medicine and truly understand his client’s medical condition before I even have had the opportunity to help educate him on the cardiology issues in his case.
If I do reach the opinion that there has been malpractice, I admire the way that Mr. Winer and his law firm fight for the rights of their clients. Although I maintain my role as a neutral expert (who usually testifies on behalf of doctors), I have observed Mr. Winer acting like a general preparing for battle as he prepares his case for trial. He attempts to anticipate every move by the other side and prepares the case thoroughly and meticulously.
I suppose my highest compliment to Mr. Winer is that I would not like to be testifying as an expert witness on the other side in one of his cases.”
James Alderman, M.D.
Clinical Assistant Professor of Cardiology,
Harvard Medical School