Expert Witness Testimony in the Criminal Trial of Eugene de Kock: A Critique of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Defence

The Diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was presented as the core testimony in mitigation of sentence in the Eugene de Kock criminal trial. Several hundred pages of expert witness testimony were assessed and the difficulties of diagnosing PTSD for forensic determination, especially when the client is familiar with the usually well-publicised symptoms, are presented. The obligation of expert witnesses to remain objective, testify within their areas of expertise, not assume the role of lie detectors and write accurate reports were emphasised.

Download Full-text

The Irresponsible Expert Witness: A Failure of Biomedical Graduate Education and Professional Accountability

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.70.5.754 ◽

1982 ◽

Vol 70 (5) ◽

pp. 754-762 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Robert L. Brent

Keyword(s):

Expert Witness ◽

Expert Witnesses ◽

Contributing Factors ◽

Witness Testimony ◽

Expert Witness Testimony ◽

Professional Accountability ◽

Proper Role ◽

And Function

Many forces have created the epidemic of negligence and malpractice litigation. One of the contributing factors to the rising rate of nonmeritorious litigation is the increasing number of unqualified and irresponsible expert witnesses. The high remuneration has attracted physican-scientists who are unaware of the proper role of an expert witness. They are frequently manipulated by the attorneys and function as partisans rather than scholars. The role of the expert witness should be taught in medical and graduate school. Testimony should be treated as a scholarly endeavor and experts should be encouraged to seek peer review of their opinions and not to testify secretly and in isolation. It is suggested that greater visibility of experts and their testimony (light of day phenomenon) should raise the quality of expert witness testimony and encourage more qualified experts to participate as expert witnesses, thus removing the stigmata usually associated with unqualified expert witnesses.

Download Full-text

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Journal of Neurosurgery ◽

10.3171/2013.8.jns13584 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 120 (1) ◽

pp. 185-190 ◽

Cited By ~ 26

Author(s):

Jean Anderson Eloy ◽

Peter F. Svider ◽

Adam J. Folbe ◽

William T. Couldwell ◽

James K. Liu

Keyword(s):

Expert Witness ◽

Medical Community ◽

Expert Witnesses ◽

Witness Testimony ◽

Expert Witness Testimony ◽

Malpractice Litigation ◽

Scholarly Impact ◽

Medical Licensing ◽

Neurological Surgery

Object Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation. Methods Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards. Results Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%). Conclusions Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.

Download Full-text

Guidelines for Expert Witness Testimony in Medical Liability Cases(S93-3)

PEDIATRICS ◽

10.1542/peds.94.5.755 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 94 (5) ◽

pp. 755-756 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Keyword(s):

Expert Witness ◽

Standard Of Care ◽

Standards Of Care ◽

Medical Liability ◽

Expert Witnesses ◽

Witness Testimony ◽

Expert Witness Testimony ◽

Standards Of Practice ◽

American Academy Of Pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics joins with other medical organizations in emphasizing the obligation of objectivity when its members respond to requests to serve as expert witnesses in the judicial system. Regardless of the source of the request, such testimony ought to embody the relevant facts and the expert's knowledge, experience, and best judgment regarding the case. At the same time, the Academy reiterates that it cannot condone participation of its members in legal actions in which their testimony will impugn some performances that clearly fall within the accepted standards of practice or, conversely, will endorse some obviously deficient practices. The role of an expert witness in a medical liability case is to testify to the standards of care in a given case, and to explain how the defendant did or did not conform to those standards. An expert witness may be asked to testify as to whether a deviation from the standard of care caused the injury. Expert witnesses are also called upon to help an attorney determine if a case has merit, and in several states attorneys are required by law to consult an expert before a suit is filed. Because experts are relied upon to help courts and juries understand the "standards of practice" as applicable to a given case, care must be exercised that such "expert testimony" does not narrowly reflect the experts' views about applicable standards to the exclusion of other acceptable and perhaps more realistic choices. The standards of care for generalists may not necessarily be the standards of care for subspecialists.

Download Full-text

No role for benzodiazepines in posttraumatic stress disorder? A surplus of certainty despite scarce evidence

Australasian Psychiatry ◽

10.1177/1039856216689535 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 25 (4) ◽

pp. 339-341 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Vladan Starcevic

Keyword(s):

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ◽

Treatment Outcomes ◽

Posttraumatic Stress ◽

Stress Disorder ◽

Treatment Guidelines ◽

Future Research ◽

Research Needs ◽

The Core ◽

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms

Objective: This article addresses some of the controversies about the role of benzodiazepines in the treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder. Conclusions: Benzodiazepines have been admonished in treatment guidelines for posttraumatic stress disorder, but this is based on very little solid evidence. Although benzodiazepines do not seem to be effective in the treatment of the core posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, their careful use as adjunctive agents for the symptoms such as anxiety and sleep disturbance may be useful. Future research needs to identify predictors of improved treatment outcomes in posttraumatic stress disorder with use of benzodiazepines.

Download Full-text

Social Support, Emotional Intelligence, and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Symptoms

Journal of Individual Differences ◽

10.1027/1614-0001/a000185 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 37 (1) ◽

pp. 31-39 ◽

Cited By ~ 8

Author(s):

Nicole L. Hofman ◽

Austin M. Hahn ◽

Christine K. Tirabassi ◽

Raluca M. Gaher

Keyword(s):

Social Support ◽

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ◽

Emotional Intelligence ◽

Protective Factors ◽

Posttraumatic Stress ◽

Stress Disorder ◽

Traumatic Events ◽

Ptsd Symptoms ◽

The Relationship

Abstract. Exposure to traumatic events and the associated risk of developing Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms is a significant and overlooked concern in the college population. It is important for current research to identify potential protective factors associated with the development and maintenance of PTSD symptoms unique to this population. Emotional intelligence and perceived social support are two identified protective factors that influence the association between exposure to traumatic events and PTSD symptomology. The current study examined the mediating role of social support in the relationship between emotional intelligence and PTSD symptoms. Participants included 443 trauma-exposed university students who completed online questionnaires. The results of this study indicated that social support mediates the relationship between emotional intelligence and reported PTSD symptoms. Thus, emotional intelligence is significantly associated with PTSD symptoms and social support may play an integral role in the relationship between emotional intelligence and PTSD. The current study is the first to investigate the role of social support in the relationship between emotional intelligence and PTSD symptoms. These findings have important treatment and prevention implications with regard to PTSD.

Download Full-text