ABSTRACT
The best scientific testimony may not turn out to be the most persuasive to a court, but claimants are unlikely to prevail unless their professional witnesses articulate a plausible basis for a verdict of malpractice. Once the legal concept of malpractice is grasped, most of the situations that carry legal risks in connection with treating epilepsy are readily identifiable. These include failure to prescribe antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) despite evidence of epilepsy, failure to prescribe appropriate AEDs or appropriate dosages, and failure to monitor treatment or deal appropriately with adverse reactions. Malpractice suits are time-consuming and expensive to prepare, and lawyers will be reluctant to make such an investment unless there is adequate financial incentive. Elastic notions of both fault and proximate causation may, however, undermine the protective value of formal legal rules and transmute the malpractice system into a device for shifting costs of certain accidents to blameless health care providers.
