Expert Opinion: Opposing Views: The Appropriateness of Expert Testimony Regarding Hedonic Damages

2000 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Connell
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Expert Testimony

Exploring Juror Evaluations of Expert Opinions Using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) Framework

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristy Martire ◽  
Danielle Navarro ◽  
Gary Edmond
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Gait Analysis ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Jury Decision Making ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Subjective Ratings ◽  
Expert Opinions ◽  
Jury Decision

Title: Exploring Juror Evaluations of Expert Opinions Using the Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) Framework PurposeFactfinders in trials struggle to differentiate witnesses who offer genuinely expert opinions from those who do not. The Expert Persuasion Expectancy (ExPEx) framework proposes eight attributes logically relevant to this assessment: foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency and trustworthiness. We present two experiments examining the effects of these attributes on the persuasiveness of a forensic gait analysis opinion. MethodsJury-eligible participants rated the credibility, value and weight of an expert report that was either generally strong (Exp. 1; N = 437) or generally weak (Exp. 2; N = 435). The quality of ExPEx attributes varied between participants. Allocation to condition (none, foundation, field, specialty, ability, opinion, support, consistency, trustworthiness) determined which attribute in the report would be weak (cf. strong; Exp. 1), or strong (cf. weak; Exp. 2). ResultsIn Experiment 1, the persuasiveness of a strong report was significantly undermined by weak versions of ability, consistency and trustworthiness. In Experiment 2. a weak report was significantly improved by strong versions of ability and consistency. Unplanned analyses of subjective ratings also identified effects of foundation, field, specialty and opinion.ConclusionsWe found that evidence that ability (i.e., personal proficiency), consistency (i.e., endorsement by other experts), and trustworthiness (i.e., objectivity) attributes influence opinion persuasiveness in logically appropriate ways. Ensuring that factfinders have information about these attributes may improve their assessments of expert opinion evidence. KEYWORDS: Expert opinion; Persuasion; Expert Testimony; Jury decision-making; Expert evidence

scholarly journals Invited commentary on Expert testimony in court

2003 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-190
Author(s):  
Sir Louis Blom-Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Cause Of Death ◽  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
The Body ◽  
16Th Century ◽  
Post Mortem ◽  
Forensic Pathologist ◽  
Factual Data

Those who possess expertise or experience of a scientific or technical nature are often called to give evidence as a witness in a court or tribunal (in Scotland, he or she is known as a ‘skilled witness’). In so far as the expert witness expresses an opinion, that evidence is, strictly speaking, an exception to the hearsay rule. However, since the 16th century, the courts have admitted opinion evidence from anyone, not just a ‘professional’, who can assist the court on a scientific or technical matter which is an issue in the case and is beyond the knowledge of the court or tribunal. Frequently, the expert witness will be giving evidence as to fact as well as opinion. For example, the forensic pathologist who conducts a post-mortem examination will be able to give a factual description of the condition of the body and, at the same time, give an expert opinion on the cause of death. The forensic psychiatrist will similarly describe what has been determined about the patient on examination of his or her symptoms and express an opinion on the patient's mental health. There will be cases where the expert is supplied with factual data on which to express an expert opinion.

Expert Opinion Evidence: The Middle Way

2009 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. 430-450 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
The Other ◽  
Individual Basis ◽  
Middle Way ◽  
Laissez Faire ◽  
The One

This article assesses the admissibility of expert testimony and suggests that generic principles for admission may, taken in isolation, be more inclined to mislead than assist. Instead, it is preferable to consider each case on an individual basis. This is the current judicial response. The judicial response, whilst broadly correct in approach, may benefit in terms of implementation by greater precision of definition. Judges may benefit from guidance provided by working parties outside the courtroom. A middle path is suggested charting a path between laissez-faire admission, on the one hand, and a call for pervasive principles of admission, on the other.

scholarly journals Property liability of expert witnesses (articulation of the problem)

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Daria Zatonova
Keyword(s):  
Expert Opinion ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Civil Liability ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Judicial System ◽  
Second Opinion ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Valid Evidence

This article is dedicated to the search of the answer to the question of whether or not an expert witness carries civil legal (property) liability for providing flawed expert opinion that the court refuses to admit as the valid evidence in a case. An attempt is made to answer the question of whether compensation of the expert can be lowered; should the initial expert’s testimony be paid if the court requires second opinion; can the court refuse payment to the expert witness or a conclusion must be made that expert witnesses have immunity from property liability. Based on the results of analysis of arbitration court case law it is determined that in majority of the cases courts conclude that despite an ill-prepared expert testimony, compensation of the expert witness cannot be decreased or unpaid, while independent claim against the expert will not be satisfied. Such approach of the judicial system testifies that expert witnesses have de-facto immunity from civil liability, despite the fact that such immunity is not covered by the legislation. Moreover, there is a principle of general tort, according to which any damages, including those inflicted by an expert witness, are subject to compensation.

State-by-State Use of AMA Guides

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 3-7, 16
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Narrow Range ◽  
The United States ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Federal Employees ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
History Of ◽  
Canadian Provinces

Abstract This article presents a history of the origins and development of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), from the publication of an article titled “A Guide to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment of the Extremities and Back” (1958) until a compendium of thirteen guides was published in book form in 1971. The most recent, sixth edition, appeared in 2008. Over time, the AMA Guides has been widely used by US states for workers’ compensation and also by the Federal Employees Compensation Act, the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, as well as by Canadian provinces and other jurisdictions around the world. In the United States, almost twenty states have developed some form of their own impairment rating system, but some have a narrow range and scope and advise evaluators to consult the AMA Guides for a final determination of permanent disability. An evaluator's impairment evaluation report should clearly document the rater's review of prior medical and treatment records, clinical evaluation, analysis of the findings, and a discussion of how the final impairment rating was calculated. The resulting report is the rating physician's expert testimony to help adjudicate the claim. A table shows the edition of the AMA Guides used in each state and the enabling statute/code, with comments.

A Trial Consultant's View of the Medical Expert Witness

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-10
Author(s):  
Deborah Rutt ◽  
Kathyrn Mueller
Keyword(s):  
Nonverbal Communication ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Personal Injury ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Good Teacher ◽  
Medical Expert ◽  
Medical Terms ◽  
Medical Issues

Abstract Physicians who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) often serve as medical expert witnesses. In workers’ compensation cases, the expert may appear in front of a judge or hearing officer; in personal injury and other cases, the physician may testify by deposition or in court before a judge with or without a jury. This article discusses why medical expert witnesses are needed, what they do, and how they can help or hurt a case. Whether it is rendered by a judge or jury, the final opinions rely on laypersons’ understanding of medical issues. Medical expert testimony extracts from the intricacies of the medical literature those facts the trier of fact needs to understand; highlights the medical facts pertinent to decision making; and explains both these in terms that are understandable to a layperson, thereby enabling the judge or jury to render well-informed opinions. For expert witnesses, communication is everything, including nonverbal communication that critically determines if judges and, particularly, jurors believe a witness. To these ends, an expert medical witnesses should know the case; be objective; be a good teacher; state opinions clearly; testify with appropriate professional demeanor; communicate well, both verbally and nonverbally; in verbal communications, explain medical terms and procedures so listeners can understand the case; and avoid medical jargon, finding fault or blaming, becoming argumentative, or appearing arrogant.

Valuable Maxims for Expert Testimony

PsycCRITIQUES ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Andrew H. Benjamin
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document