It usually starts politely. Counsel asks whether you are a medical doctor. You say no, because you are not. He asks whether you completed a residency. No again. Board certified in radiology? No. Four honest answers, and none of them was yours.
That is the credential attack, and it works by accumulation. By the time the real question arrives, the jury has heard you describe yourself in negatives for ten minutes. This module teaches you to agree once, claim your license and training by name, bound your own scope before he does, and land all of it on this patient's chart.
When you finish, you will be able to
01Recognize a credential attack — counsel building a stack of true negatives before asking the real question.
02Agree once to what is true without conceding a series of them.
03Run one answer structure — claim, bound, apply — across all six credential vectors.
04State your license and doctoral training affirmatively, by name, without sounding defensive.
05Name the edge of your scope before opposing counsel names it for you.
06Answer the radiologist wedge without disputing a specialist or overstating your read.
07Defend a method rather than a credential when reliability is challenged.
Roughly three hours of work, best taken across four or five sittings. Nothing here is passive — every screen asks you to decide something.