Expert Witnesses: Perpetuating a Flawed System and Ethical Issues Related to Medical Expert Testimony

2006 ◽  
Vol 107 (3) ◽  
pp. 739
Author(s):  
Charles B. Hammond ◽  
Peter A. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Medical Expert

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.

Ethical Issues Related to Medical Expert Testimony

2005 ◽  
Vol 106 (5, Part 1) ◽  
pp. 1055-1058 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles B. Hammond ◽  
Peter A. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Medical Expert

scholarly journals Perspectives on Neuroradiology Medical Expert Testimony: Fact and Fiction

2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (12) ◽  
pp. 2177-2181
Author(s):  
D.M. Yousem ◽  
G.H. Zoarski ◽  
A.S. Mark ◽  
E.S. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Medical Expert

scholarly journals Performing Expertise: The Design of Audiovisual Links and the Construction of the Remote Expert Witness in Court

2018 ◽  
Vol 28 (5) ◽  
pp. 698-718
Author(s):  
Emma Rowden ◽  
Anne Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Load ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Mode Of Delivery ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Jury Trials ◽  
Technological Improvements ◽  
The Relationship

This article reports on empirical research conducted into the use of audiovisual links (videolinks) to take expert testimony in jury trials. Studies reveal ambivalent attitudes to court use of videolink, with most previous research focussed on its use for vulnerable witnesses and defendants. Our study finds there are issues unique to expert witnesses appearing by videolink, such as compromised ability to gesture and interact with exhibits and demonstrative tools, and reductions in availability of feedback to gauge juror understanding. Overall, the use of videolinks adds an additional cognitive load to the task of giving expert evidence. While many of these issues might be addressed through environmental or technological improvements, we argue this research has broader ramifications for expert witnesses and the courts. The use of videolinks for taking expert evidence exposes the contingent nature of expertise and the cultural scaffolding inherent in its construction. In reflecting on the implications of these findings, and on the way that reliability, credibility and expertise are defined and established in court, we suggest a more critical engagement with the relationship between content and mode of delivery by stakeholders.

United States Supreme Court Rules on Expert Testimony

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 95 (6) ◽  
pp. 934-936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary N. McAbee
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Expert Witnesses ◽  
Us Supreme Court

Many medical and legal commentators have expressed concern about the validity of scientific evidence that is proffered by expert witnesses at depositions and in courts of law.1,2 The sparse research that is available on the testimony of medical expert witnesses suggests that it is frequently flawed and erroneous.3 On June 28, 1993, the United States (US) Supreme Court ruled on the proper standard for admissibility of scientific evidence in the courtroom.4 Although the ruling establishes guidelines that are binding only in federal courts, it is expected that many state courts will follow the Court's ruling. This commentary reviews the Court's guidelines for admissibility of expert testimony, and expresses concern about their applicability in future cases involving scientific testimony.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document