00:10:11 - 05:10:11
Jerrod Bailey 00:02
Welcome everybody to reimagining healthcare: a new dialogue with risk and patient safety leaders presented by Medplace. We're excited to bring you conversations with top risk and patient safety thought leaders from organizations around the country. Please subscribe to get the latest news and content. If you found value from this episode, please share it with your colleagues to create some meaningful dialogues in your communities. Also, if you're interested in participating as a guest, please send us an email at speakers@Medplace.com. So today, I'm joined by Joshua Silverman, a personal injury attorney with his own firm Silverman Law Firm LLC, Josh has practiced for over 20 years and currently practices in the museum district in Richmond, Virginia. I don't know about that, Josh, you're going to have to give me some color on that. He has achieved many notable recognitions from the legal community, including designation as a Virginia Super Lawyer every year since 2013, and as a 2015, top rated lawyer in health care law based on his AV peer review rating in Martindale Hubbell. So, Josh welcome.
Josh Silverman 01:24
Well, thank you, I appreciate you having me.
Jerrod Bailey 01:27
You know, it's really good to have you and we do a lot of conversations around risk and med mal and a lot from the defense side, and it's really nice to have somebody from the other side to kind of come in and help bring that in sort of enrich the perspective, right. So, okay, so let's start with my, kind of the first question I've got on my list. Why do you think plaintiff's side you know, med mal lawyers have gotten such a bad rap over the years? What's behind that?
Josh Silverman 02:01
Wow. In truth, I don't think it's just a med mal lawyers. I think the truth is lawyers have a bad rap. Public doesn't think much of lawyers. I don't think med mal lawyers on the plaintiff side are any exception. I don't think we're liked or disliked any more than any other aspect of law. And yeah, so anticipating that question, I've been thinking about that. And you can do it a little bit of research, the ABA, the American Bar Association has been concerned about it. And they've done some public polling, and I'll just share some of what I found. What they found, I should say is, on the positive side, the public thinks that lawyers are well trained, and that we know what we're doing. We're knowledgeable about the law. Most of the time when people hire lawyers, they're happy with the lawyer say hire, say most of the time they have good experiences, and consumers will tell stories about what went well with their lawyers.
And oddly, despite thinking poorly about lawyers, most people tend to think law is a good career and a respectable career to go into. So worse, the negative thinking, well, 74% of people think lawyers are more interested in winning than in seeing that justice is served. And, frankly, I'd be part of that 74%. I mean, I'm hired to win nobody's hiring me to do what is necessarily just although I think that's good. If that happens. And people, let's say 73% Think lawyers spend too much time finding technicalities to get criminals released. I think they do that. That's what they're paid to do. And lawyers are more interested in making money than in serving their clients and 69% of the public say that I disagree with that statement.
Well, we have we've got an adversarial system. So lawyers, lawyers aren't hired just to come up with the best outcome they're hired to win for whoever they hire whoever hires them. Yeah. And what that tends to lead to is people fighting hard. And outcomes aren't necessarily what everybody would like. I mean, I remember when I was in law school, the big trial was the OJ Simpson trial. And everybody knew in their mind what the outcome should be. So they were mad at the lawyers, if lawyers have helped obtain an outcome that they didn't think was right, they thought your trial should have just been a rubber stamp on their sense of justice and people were angry. So yeah, it's a shame though. i My experience is on both the plaintiff side defense side. Most lawyers are just like everybody else. They want to work hard they want to do Well for their clients, they've got integrity. But yeah, we are competitive and we do want to win. There's no way around that. You know,
Jerrod Bailey 05:08
I deal a lot with folks in the med mal industry on both sides. And there's plenty of folks on the defense side that say those plaintiff side law firms, they're, they're terrible, and they're, they're evil. And then you find the ones that really get it and they go, thank God for them. Thank God for the plaintiff side firms, because what would we do if we didn't have a system that was advocating, for the patient? And, and I think that's it's an average burial system. But we hope then, in the middle of that, of that combat, that justice does find a way to get done. Right. Yeah.
Josh Silverman 05:45
I mean, and that's the theory. And I think in general, it works, where people are paid to bring out all sides of something. And I think that way, the jury can hear everything. Yeah, ultimately come up with what I think is the right outcome. And I think most of the time, the jurors work hard to get to the right outcome. But certainly, I get it, my I'm in a family with a lot of health care providers, my wife is a med mal defense attorney. getting sued is an awful experience. And if you've been sued, even if you made a mistake, you're going to be pretty upset and angry about it. And we're kind of right in the middle of that. One of the things my wife tries to do was calm her clients down and said, This isn't personal. And let's just kind of work on what actually happened. And we'll build a defense for you.
Jerrod Bailey 06:37
Yeah. Well, so if I asked you the question, how does your work help drive healthcare forward? How would you answer that? Well,
Josh Silverman 06:46
I think particularly in the nursing home setting, this is a for profit industry, and no way around it, it's even becoming more so as a for profit industry. And what's the biggest way to make profit bring in more money than you're expending? And the primary expenses, labor employees, and my concern is that these corporations trying to make a profit are cutting corners on the labor. So the way I think about it, and I don't know if this is the reality, but at least in my perception, I want to make it expensive to provide bad care. In other words, I'd like for these nursing homes to think let's adequately staff the place and not get sued. And if they're thinking about cutting corners, realizing their risks, and they're expensive for us. So it comes in everybody's best interest for them to put patients before profits. And that's what we really want for a nurse in the nursing home industry is put down, but the patient's first.
And unfortunately, I don't think it happens always when you've got a for profit industry, with shareholders that you're accountable to, and you're trying to make money. So I hope what we do does improve healthcare I and I, and I see signs that it does. I mean, there are a lot of things that I'm seeing healthcare providers do now that they didn't do 20 years ago. You know, one example and not a nursing home case, but setting but foreign objects being left in the body, something that should never happen. People go in for surgery and the sponges left in. Well, now what's going on is they've got electronic devices, barcode systems, where they can scan everything that all these sponges, and they don't have to rely just on human beings to counted accurately. And it's been a long time since I've seen a case like that come forward. So I like to see those improvements. And those cases were truly shooting fish in a barrel from my perspective. I mean, it just should never happen. Yeah. But it's good that I'm not getting those calls anymore. And if these lawsuits had something to do with it, good.
Jerrod Bailey 09:04
Yeah. It's interesting. There's, there's when you look on the provider side, and when bad things happen, and how a lot of those bad things eventually get sent to the carrier they sent gets sent over the fence to the folks who are really more about mitigating risk. And how much of a wall there still is, this is certainly not universal. There's some there's some great Hospitals and Facilities that really have dismantled that wall between risk and quality and they really have a great loop between Hey, something bad happened, let's never let it happen. Again, let's get that right back into our systems. But still the majority I would say of the industry still has that wall there. And in there's a an unfortunate sort of break in the information flow that I think leaves a lot of opportunity on the table to see improvements come out of when bad things happen.
Josh Silverman 09:56
Yeah, I mean, that's what I'm saying. I see particularly on the hospital side, I think the hospitals are really doing a good job at investigating when things go wrong and implementing steps to prevent it from happening again. Yeah, I think the hospitals are doing a great job with that. I'm not seeing that with the nursing homes. Now. They're not going to tell me everything they're doing behind the scenes. But yeah, I'm seeing more of taking steps to protect themselves from liability as opposed to preventing errors in the first place.
Jerrod Bailey 10:29
Well, so that's interesting. So give me a little bit of like, I don't know if this is inside baseball. But you know, you've seen enough pattern recognition, you've seen enough of these cases works enough with these facilities. How do you? Are you how to plaintiffs, lawyers in general, just go about determining which cases to take?
Josh Silverman 10:48
Yeah, that's a great question. I mean, we're not healthcare providers. So it's not like we can say how a surgery supposed to be done. We learn things along the way, if you learn you talk to experts on one case, you carry it forward, I guess the number one criteria is there's got to be a very bad outcome. So if somebody calls me up, and they've had horrible bedside manner, clear mistake, but everything ends fairly well. That's not the case, I'm not going to invest my time, I'm not going to subject the doctor or the nursing home to a lawsuit. And if they're, if at all ended, well, no harm, no foul, I guess, sometimes, yes, situations where things weren't going to end well, no matter what. So for example, cases involving delayed diagnosis of cancer. If a doctor misreads a mammogram, but the cancer was already progressed, and the six months or one year delay didn't change the outcome, that's not going to be a case.
So I mean, the number one thing we're looking for is there really has to be a very bad outcome, a severe and permanent injury, or somebody losing their life. If you don't have those damages, you're not I'm not going to pursue the case. And then I'm really looking for clarity in terms of things that are supposed to have happened, and what didn't happen. And you can kind of think about it as rules, there's rules in terms of how to do most everything. In life, we got rules for how to drive a car, there's rules for how you take care of a patient. And it's there a clear violation of those rules.
For example, if it's a nursing home, you've got assess a resident for the risk of developing a pressure ulcer, and then you got to take steps to prevent them from happening. And then I go look through the records, did they do those things? Statistically, I probably turned down about 99% of all potential cases. I mean, we're, we're really looking for that case, that is very clear that a mistake was made that caused a very bad outcome. And, and for the other 99%, I talked to them and explain to them that it's not personal, what happened may have been bad. And it's certainly tragic anytime somebody dies, but that does not mean that it's going to be a good medical malpractice case, and that they should be thinking otherwise.
Jerrod Bailey 13:18
Now you're evaluating sort of the clinical work that got done and the decisions that were made along the way, you're an attorney, I'm a technology person, neither of us know, probably you probably know more about the medicine than I do. How do you how do you evaluate that? How do you evaluate the medicine side of it? Do you have your own doctors and nurses?
Josh Silverman 13:37
Yeah, well, not really my own, I do have some legal nurse consultants that are just really good at what they do. Yeah. And I asked them to review and give me some insight. They're not people that are ever going to testify. My direction to them is tell you tell me the bad news. I don't want to hear it from a jury. So if that's the case, I shouldn't be pursued. Tell me now before I spend more time and energy and drag this on for the family. But ultimately, I'm never going to file a malpractice suit unless I've, I've hired and had very competent experts review the case, where they're reviewing all of the medical records. I don't go to the same people time and time again. That's not my goal. I'm not looking to buy an opinion. Yeah, I'm looking for somebody that's going to give me a credible, a, they're going to educate me. So I want them to teach me the medicine.
I mean, I do my homework. So I'm going to read medical literature. I'm going to do what I can, but it's never going to be a substitute for the people that are in the trenches. So I want them to educate me first and foremost. And then I want them to tell me whether or not what happened was done correctly, whether it was in a great area, and in other words in hindsight, I wouldn't have done it this way. There's better ways to do it, but it probably fits within the standard of care, or did these health care providers clearly breach the standard of care, and those, those are the cases that most of us are going to be taking. That's
Jerrod Bailey 15:12
amazing. You're looking for the same thing that the other side is looking for, like, show me the good, the bad, the ugly. And you would think if both sides were really good at that, then the cases that needed to be prosecuted would get prosecuted cases that should be dropped would get dropped. And yet, we see a bunch of inefficiency. And you know, we see a bunch of cases that shouldn't be pushed through. So you know, it's if both sides want the same thing, why do we have all this waste in the middle?
Josh Silverman 15:42
Because I don't think both sides want the same thing. All right. And I'll just be blunt about that. So I only I get to select my cases, and I only get paid if I win. Or if there's a settlement. on the defense side, it's different.
First of all, the defense, they're going to take a case, because they've got an obligation to these doctors are insured, the insurance company has to provide them with the defense. So they're going to fight it no matter what they don't have the option of saying what, we blew it, we're going to pass on this one they do have the option of stepping forward and trying to settle the case. But that doesn't always happen. And it doesn't happen for a couple of reasons. One is the insurance companies don't want to pay out if they can avoid paying out. And what they frequently will do is they will keep going to expert to expert to expert until they find somebody that will support them, they've got the resources to do it. And if they find somebody who will support them, then they're in a spot that they can defend the case. And I have the mindset, if you look hard enough, you're going to find somebody who's going to say most anything.
There's another big piece to it, though. And that is malpractice insurance almost always has a consent to settle clause, meaning the insurance companies can't settle the case without the health care providers permission. So if you compare, if I caused a car accident, my insurance company can settle it over my objections over my swearing up that I was innocent, and yada, yada. And malpractice, they can't do that. They've got to get the providers consent. And providers often don't want to consent because it gets reported to the Board of Medicine. So if there's the settlement, it goes to the Board of Medicine, the Board of Medicine, then will investigate and could take action on their license. The settlement does, at least in Virginia, where I practice, it actually ends up on the border medicines website. So you can look up, you can look up your doctor and see whether or not there have been any claims paid within the last 10 years. Doctors don't want that. And since they're not going to pay for the defense, they've already paid for it through their insurance, and premiums, they've got an incentive to fight. And I've seen a lot of cases that have been fought that really shouldn't have been fought.
Jerrod Bailey 18:09
So I tell you, it's I see it all the time, like everything you just described. And you know, these consent to settle clauses, I see some silver and rec some, maybe some hope in it, I'm starting to see those clauses. Less often. I'm starting to see things like CRP programs like communication resolution programs start to rise to the top which is hey, let's don't do the same thing that we're used to, which is kind of the stonewalling tactics, let's try to create dialogue and, and reconcile things like that. And you're seeing laws come up that will allow those types of things to happen more often without things being reported. So everybody's a little bit freer to talk. So you know, I and then you know, there's definitely continuum of mindsets on the on the carrier side on the defense side from the deny and defend a brick wall all day long. In you see a lot of suffering from that also from the provider, the provider that's involved, that's you know, years go by and in that's, that's really difficult on them and on their families, and then of course, on the patient and their families. And then you got cures on the other end, or at least trying to get towards the other end that are that are trained to do a different approach. So I unfortunately, I wish I could wave a magic wand and get everybody to sort of do the right thing all the time on both sides. But I don't I don't get that luxury. But I do see I do see some mentalities changing in an industry that has not changed in many, many decades. So I think there's any hope there. There's a few that are kind of on the vanguard of that. So okay, so what can a health care provider do to reduce the likelihood of getting sued?
Josh Silverman 19:55
Good question. You know what? They obvious of course, do is provide good care. But look, we're all human, and mistakes are going to happen. I think bedside manner is a huge piece of it. If the doctor or the nurse is barely given the patient or their family, the time of day, if they're rushed, if they're not given the impression that they really care about the patient, and then something goes wrong, it's a natural thing to think they really didn't put in the effort, you know. So having that bedside manner is huge. Make that faith that you want the family to really have a connection with the provider and not want to sit? Yeah, to be able to take the accept the idea that things were that these are people that really gave it their best effort. And I think that's what usually happens.
But the family really needs to have a sense that the doctor and the nurses care when things go wrong. Honesty is so important. And I've seen it many times where things don't go wrong, and then the cover up proves to be worse than the crime.
Yeah. So you know, as they say, if you're if you're in a hole, the first thing you need to do is stop digging. And, yeah, and some of it making changes to the medical records is one of the worst things a health care provider can do your it's going to, it's going to be caught. Don't do that. But just get. But if if you need to say you're sorry, say you're sorry. Virginia actually has an apology statute that says that an apology can't be used against you. As long as it's a general apology. So if I am really sorry that your mother passed away, she was a lovely lady. That that's all fine. If it's, I'm really sorry that I did X, Y and Z wrong. You know, that's a different story. So but saying you're sorry, goes a long way. It's the same thing we teach our kids and our Yeah, yeah. Doesn't matter what profession you're in. That that's what I put probably highest on the list. And of course, learn from your mistakes. Don't none of us should be so arrogant to think we don't make mistakes. And when we do, the best thing to do is to make sure you don't make the same mistake twice.
Jerrod Bailey 22:25
Yeah. That's, that's good. Well, it's interesting. You know, one of the questions I have a list is what type of cloud collaboration is common between plaintiff and defense attorneys? Is there collaboration,
Josh Silverman 22:39
there is people don't realize it, we get along. For the most part. I mean, there's, there's somebody out, there's always somebody out there that drives you nuts. But I think for the most part is we talk to each other. We try to work things out when there's room to work things out. It doesn't mean we don't that we pull our punches. But we try not to get into stupid fights. And we try to be respectful to each other. We're respectful to the litiganthents. We still are what we call it in the laws, we stipulate to things that we should stipulate to. So I'm not going to have to call calling healthcare providers to show that the records are authentic, I'll reach out to the other side, we can agree these are authentic, we don't need a records custodian to come in and go through that sort of thing. So we give each other extensions on deadlines when it's warranted. So in general, we work together on the process, but in terms of the actual outcome, we fight hard. And that's the way it should be we need to be treated each other with respect. Yeah. And it's sometimes it's a little bit uncomfortable to the clients, like I saw you shaking hands with the other attorney. And yeah, he's a nice guy. Right? Now. He's asking about my kids. I'd like to know how his kids are doing to that, but then we're going to get in the courtroom and we're going to fight hard. And
Jerrod Bailey 24:12
to do yeah, we've got jobs to do, but we can treat each other civilly and, and not hit below the belt. And
Josh Silverman 24:21
if you want an analogy, if you watch sports they shake hands before the game, they shake hands and hug after the games. And they fight hard in between.
Jerrod Bailey 24:33
Well it's interesting when I you know, you're married to a defense attorney, you're on the plaintiff side, you've got to have some like lessons like, or at least in collaborating with your wife. Like if you had a magic wand, is there anything that you kind of wish the industry would do this? I don't even know if this is a fair question. But like what do you what frustrates you that that is the same frustration on the defense side, but you know, there's maybe some system where related issues keeping them from happening,
Josh Silverman 25:03
I guess my biggest frustration is usually delay. And I'd like to get my cases moving forward and resolved sooner rather than later. And usually, I find that the defense lawyers are up against tougher schedules, they usually have more clients. And it's tough to get these things scheduled getting trial scheduled. And what I'd really like is looking at resolution early, some attorneys on the defense side, I think, are great at doing that. I think others there are paid by the hour, and they're going to, they're going to work the file for a while before they're going to be ready, but to try to settle but there are cases out there, that there's some real clarity from the beginning. And everybody knows, we can litigate this for two years. And we're going to know every we're going to know nothing that we didn't already know. Yeah, let's sit down. Let's bring in a mediator. Let's try to get the case resolved today. Yeah. And then move on to cases that really want to fight.
Jerrod Bailey 26:05
I would love to see that. And I see I hear the same sentiment from the other side. It's we know, there's the clear cases that that we know should be should be settled somehow earlier. And most cases don't make it to court anyway. I mean, what is it like 5% and actually make it to take it to trial? Everything else gets settled somehow, in some way? Why can't we move that up? Why can't we make that more efficient? It's part of what we do here. I mean, we're a technology company that's just built to help drive efficiency inside of the process. And sometimes getting a busy neurosurgeon to provide an opinion on the case can be time consuming. But yeah,
Josh Silverman 26:43
I mean, I'd love it if defense lawyers would sit down with their clients and have that discussion of Look, you're a great doctor, but this wasn't your best day. You know, and let's try to, let's see what we can do to do right by this family. Yeah. And get it done? Well,
Jerrod Bailey 27:03
you know, I think a lot of is these early resolution, the CRP programs really do give me a lot of hope. I've talked to a number of people, providers, people on the defense side, that once they enter into CRP, it sounds scary at first, but then they enter into it, and they find out that it's better for the patient, for the family, for the brand of the provider they have to maintain a brand in these communities that they're in for the, for the doctor or the nurse that was involved. I mean, it's better for everybody if these things can move faster. And if everyone wants that, if the only one who doesn't want it is the is the attorney who's on the billable hour? There's got to be way to fix that. Right.
Josh Silverman 27:44
Absolutely. I mean, nobody likes going to trial, except maybe the lawyers. Nobody does, it's, and I tell my clients this, it isn't fun sitting in a jury for in a courtroom for day after day with the jury watching the anticipation is horrible before a case. And for all the court is going to call you the day before trial and say, the judge has a conflict, we're going to have to reschedule it, and it gets pushed back another year. So, yeah, anytime that we look for ways to get people to the endzone, let's get this resolved and move on with our lives sooner, I think is a good thing. Yeah, even if it means compromising, which it almost always does. You know, every mediation that I've taken, part of that is successful, and most our people leave, they are not getting everything they wanted. And that's, that's what a compromise is
Jerrod Bailey 28:46
yeah, the system's kind of built for that. You know, you I don't know that you even know this, but Medplace as a platform, and as this network of practicing clinicians around the country, that provide opinions on cases, the whole thing was built originally to support CRP, we were actually built because in this came from the defense side event, a lot of money went into, hey, we'd like to get unbiased reviews, tell us what the good, the bad and the ugly. And we'd like to do within a few days, not months. Because we want to get back to the patient. We want to get back to the provider and we want to like find these opportunities to resolve these things faster, like dramatically faster than then we've been doing. And so if that gives you any hope I think there's reason to hope there.
I think that there's there really, there is some intention in the industry to I think both sides are aware of it. Like we just got to wake up to the fact that there's a better faster way to resolve things and it's really an attitudinal change. It's not even a technology change or anything more dramatic than really just kind of looking at these philosophies, there was a Candela report Recently, I don't know if you know Candela that's the consulting arm of Krakow that's Harvards, captive, and Candela did an analysis of CRP and said, hey, guess what, guys, there is no increase in payouts, there's no sort of downside risk of CRP programs. There's just if you do it, there's all the upside of better relationships, leaving patients and families feeling whole and heard. And it just you just described everything to support that from the from the plaintiff side. So I think that's great.
Josh Silverman 30:36
Yeah, I agree. Yeah, the more we can do to resolve things early, the better some cases, it's just never going to happen. And it's going to require going to court. But you know, I think that truly is a minority of cases. I think the majority of cases, the plaintiff has experts that wouldn't have filed the lawsuit if they didn't have experts. So there is a legitimate dispute, and nobody can guarantee an outcome in court. Yeah, one thing I've learned. You know,
Jerrod Bailey 31:06
I think that one area I'd love to end on here Josh's is specifically because you have some significant spirits here that just the kind of the current state of nursing homes, what's what is the current state? Why is it important? Like what, what do you think needs to happen to start to improve these conditions?
Josh Silverman 31:25
Boy? Well, I think, I think right now, the industry is in some serious trouble, it was in trouble before COVID. And then, boy COVID, had made, frankly, put them in my mind in an impossible position, particularly went before we had the vaccines. And obviously, we've got the vaccines now the nursing home patients and the providers have been vaccinated. But now their big crisis is really this is really staffing, which was a problem all along. But as you can see, there's help wanted signs in front of every business right now. And nursing homes are really struggling to find staff. And as we talked about earlier, there is no technology, there is no way around. Human beings are needed to be with the patient in a nursing. I mean, there's just, they've tried using technology there, there are beds designed to turn and reposition a patient. So they don't develop pressure ulcers, and they help but they don't work. Or at least, they don't work, they require people to still turn and be turned and repositioned. There's technology to help keep patients from getting the wrong meds. But still, at the end of the day, it needs a nurse or a med tech to be able to sit there and pay attention to make sure this patient is getting the right medicine and the right dose in the right manner, etc.
So in my mind, there's one solution. And that is they got to you got to put down the money to have good competent staff and to have enough of them. And I don't think there's anything around there's lots of other issues. But if you want to ask me what the heart the heart of it is, it's that I mean, in most places, we don't have any laws or regulations that state staffing ratios, the number of CNAs per resident. Yeah, think about how is that the case?
Jerrod Bailey 33:28
Yeah. Yeah, most vulnerable population, these got these, you got the Baby Boomer swell, just that we're not keeping up with from a staff perspective, I'm dealing with it myself. My dad is he was in a facility, it's an IT VA facility, it was really challenging. We got and finally into a new facility that's got the right ratio, and but boy, it takes some real hunting, and it's very expensive. It's, it's a hard problem.
Josh Silverman 33:59
Well, that was going to be my next point. I mean, the cost is just unbelievable. Unbelievable. I mean, it's over $100,000 a year for nursing home care. And it varies state by state. But for the most part, Medicaid, Medicare doesn't pay for care, except shortly after a hospitalization. Medicaid only comes in if somebody is poor. So what it basically means is, unless you're mega rich, if you're in a nursing home, you're going to dwindle down your assets to nothing, then you're going to be on Medicaid, and not all facilities except Medicaid. I truly think the financing of it is something that's got to be looked at. And we've got to make sure that we've got enough people in these facilities that are competent and capable of caring for the patients. And then I think I'll happen if we did that I'd find another area of law to work Uh, yeah. Okay. Well, there's
Jerrod Bailey 35:02
some real big systemic problems here. So I think you've got some job security for now. But I'd love to solve that problem with you. In Yeah, go find something for both of us. That's better to do. But unfortunately, I think we've we, you're right. There's a there's a problem that's bigger than the both of us. And it sounds like new laws and all sorts of other things are going to have to happen before we start to see some relief there. Yeah. Well, just to end off any, any, I don't know, last minute advice for any of the defense attorneys out there that might be listening to this at the risk, folks.
Josh Silverman 35:35
Oh, gosh, I don't think they're looking for advice from me. But I will just, I will just say, I've got more friends and enemies on that side of the fence. And we ought to just keep working together and trying to get to the bottom of cases sooner rather than later.
Jerrod Bailey 35:55
On That's great. Well, Josh, this was great. Thanks so much for making the time it was good to get to get to know you and to hear your to hear your heart for the patients and in you know, for the industry. It's just, it's great to meet the human on the on the side of the law. That's out there looking out for everybody. Well, thank you.
Josh Silverman 36:15
I really appreciate you having me on
Jerrod Bailey 36:17
Fantastic Well, listen, for everyone else. Thank you for listening to reimagining healthcare, a new dialogue with risk and patient safety leaders. Subscribe and Share. If you found it valuable. Feel free to share this. And if you'd like to be a speaker, email us at speakers at Medplace.com. Also, please follow Joshua's Silverman on LinkedIn. We'll post your LinkedIn link in the show notes. And for more information on plaintiff side medical malpractice, or visit Josh Silverman law.com They get the right. You got it. Fantastic, Josh, it was a pleasure. Thanks for making the time with me.
Josh Silverman 36:53
All right, have a great one. All right, you too.
Jerrod Bailey 36:56