Menu
Login
Dr. Brian H. Williams DDS is a quack for hire that testifies as an expert in Dental Malpractice cases for insurance companies like CNA to defend bad dentists. His own website at https://www.brianwilliamsdds.com/?page=legalservices says that he serves as a legal consultant for CNA Dental Malpractice Insurance. Dr. Brian Willaims is currently going to testify as an expert in CV [protected]. In the case mentioned he is defending Dr. Mark Brannon DDS who has been sued 4 times for medical malpractice who happens to be insured by CNA. Of course if Dr. Brian H. Williams earns a living consulting for CNA he is going to testify to their benefit. What a conflict of interest of course he is not going to bite the hand that feeds him. This disgusting. The insurance companies want people to pay for insurance but if you dare try to use it in a time of need they will fight you "tooth" and nail and use their own experts that work for them directly to try to get rid of your claim. There is so much corruption in corporate America and I hope that information like this gets out to help stop their little monopoly. Welcome to the internet where the peoples voice is heard.
How can an expert who is expected to be fair and impartial act as a paid consultant from CNA and then defend one of CNA's insurers and not be bias? In a case like this where the dentist falling below the standard of care is so blatant it was probably hard to get an expert to come in the defense of the Dentist Dr. Mark Brannon. In this case it looks like they sent their corporate dog in to try to diminish the claim. High profile law firms like Jennings, Strouss & Salmon P.L.C. play a high stakes game in defending insurance companies in actions where a dentist or doctor has done wrong and they will do anything to dig up dirt or pay an expert to testify beneficially for them. Behavior like this should be illegal but we are dealing with very large insurance companies who even lobby for laws to be enacted to make it harder for citizens to prove the existence of this type of behavior. In Arizona there is a law A.R.S. 12-569 that prohibits a plaintiff from even mentioning that there is professional malpractice insurance that is even paying for the defense or who they are. Of course the insurance companies wrote this law but in Arizona Supreme Court Case Barsema v. Susong found the law to be unconstitutional and therefore invalid but the insurance companies fight to keep the law on the books. If a person has a good attorney they can get past these legal hurdles and like in this case prove that an expert is bias or prejudiced by his own personal affiliations and loyalties to the insurance company. In remembering this lesson it is important to remember a Plaintiff's expert is usually much more reliable because they only charge their client a fair rate once and don't depend on future business from that client like one would from an insurance company. Plus an expert who believes that he is doing the right thing would testify against another doctor, which does not make him/her very popular in the medical community). He is coming from a much more neutral balance only testifying to what could be possible given the set of facts without worrying about certain loyalties to the insurance company.
