Finding the Right Expert Witness for Medical Malpractice Cases

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 22-25
Author(s):  
Kathy Ferrell
1995 ◽  
Vol 21 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 281-300
Author(s):  
Jody Weisberg Menon

Pleas for reform of the legal system are common. One area of the legal system which has drawn considerable scholarly attention is the jury system. Courts often employ juries as fact-finders in civil cases according to the Seventh Amendment of the Constitution: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved … .” The general theory behind the use of juries is that they are the most capable fact-finders and the bestsuited tribunal for arriving at the most accurate and just outcomes. This idea, however, has been under attack, particularly by those who claim that cases involving certain difficult issues or types of evidence are an inappropriate province for lay jurors who typically have no special background or experience from which to make informed, fair decisions.The legal system uses expert witnesses to assist triers of fact in understanding issues which are beyond their common knowledge or difficult to comprehend.


PEDIATRICS ◽  
2002 ◽  
Vol 109 (5) ◽  
pp. 974-979
Author(s):  

The interests of the public and the medical profession are best served when scientifically sound and unbiased expert witness testimony is readily available to plaintiffs and defendants in medical negligence suits. As members of the physician community, as patient advocates, and as private citizens, pediatricians have ethical and professional obligations to assist in the administration of justice, particularly in matters concerning potential medical malpractice. The American Academy of Pediatrics believes that the adoption of the recommendations outlined in this statement will improve the quality of medical expert witness testimony in such proceedings and thereby increase the probability of achieving equitable outcomes. Strategies to enforce ethical guidelines should be monitored for efficacy before offering policy recommendations on disciplining physicians for providing biased, false, or unscientific medical expert witness testimony.


2014 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 6-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leila Rodriguez

A few years ago, a Mexican man in the United States allegedly abused his young stepdaughter by fondling her breasts. Last summer, his ex-wife formally accused him of this crime, and the public defender hired me to serve as an expert witness in the sexual abuse case. The defendant argued that he had not intentionally fondled the girl, and that when this occurred a younger boy—his biological son—was also present in the bed. His lawyer believed that some of his ideas and behaviors concerning bed-sharing behavior were cultural, and that is why she contacted me.1 My task was to establish whether, in fact, in "Mexican culture" such bed-sharing behavior is considered appropriate. As I prepared myself for this endeavor I found that there is a dearth of information about the practical, scholarly, and ethical dilemmas I encountered along the process of serving as an expert witness. The case never made it to trial, as the defendant was eventually offered a plea deal in large part because of my testimony. Nonetheless, I learned valuable lessons throughout the process that will undoubtedly be useful for any cultural anthropologist facing this role.


Al-Ahkam ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 47
Author(s):  
Muhammad Hatta

<p class="IABSSS">Medical malpractice is one of the most difficult professional errors to prove. In solving medical malpractice cases, law enforcement is always assisted by doctors by connecting experts to reveal the truth with their expertise. The position of doctors as experts is very important and strategic. However, it is not easy for a doctor who wants to become a expert witness because the relationship of the suspect is a colleague. If the doctor want to be an expert witness then his testimony in court is not objective or impressed protect his colleagues. This study suggests that in the completion of medical malpractice cases in court can apply the system of proof by changing the proof to the doctor. In addition, this study also suggests to resolve medical malpractice cases that can be solved through the way of mediation before pursuing litigation settlement. In the aspect of Islamic law, the position of expert witness (<em>ra`yu al-khābir</em>) is very important to explain or interpret a case that is vague and difficult to prove. However, an evidentiary system unable to prove the medical malpractice case then Islamic law can justify by using other methods that can bring benefit in general.</p><p class="IABSSS" align="center">[]</p>Malpraktik medik adalah salah satu kesalahan professional yang sangat sulit dibuktikan. Dalam menyelesaikan kasus malpraktik medik, penegak hukum selalu dibantu oleh dokter sebagai saksi ahli untuk mengukapkan kebenaran sesuai dengan keahlian yang dimilikinya. Kedudukan dokter sebagai saksiahli sangat penting dan strategis. Namun, tidak mudah mendapatkan dokter yang mau menjadi saksi ahli terhadap tersangka karena saksi ahli dengan tersangka adalah teman sejawat. Apabila dokter mau menjadi saksi ahli maka kesaksiannya di pengadilan dinilai tidak objektif atau terkesan melindungi teman sejawatnya. Penelitian ini menyarankan supaya dalam penyelesaian kasus malpraktik medik di pengadilan dapat menerapkan sistem pembuktian terbalik dengan memindahkan beban pembuktian kepada dokter. Selain itu, penelitian ini juga me­nyarankan supaya penyelesaian kasus malpraktik medik dapat diselesaikan melalui jalur mediasi sebelum menempuh penyelesaian secara litigasi. Dalam aspek hukum islam, kedudukan saksi ahli (<em>ra`yu al-khābir</em>) sangat penting untuk menerangkan atau menafsirkan suatu perkara yang kabur dan sulit dibuktikan. Namun, apabila sistem pembuktian dengan menggunakan saksi ahli tidak mampu membuktikan perkara malpraktik medik maka hukum islam dapat membenarkan menggunakan metode lain yang dinilai dapat mendatangkan maslahat secara umum.


Author(s):  
Julian Prangenberg ◽  
Elke Doberentz ◽  
Burkhard Madea

Abstract Skin signs in acute pancreatitis are well-known and frequently discussed manifestations accompanied by unfavorable prognoses although they may rarely appear in clinical and forensic medicine. In 2018, the district attorney’s office ordered a forensic autopsy for a 74-year-old man with terminal stage pancreatic cancer. The autopsy was ordered based on accusations of the deceased’s widow regarding alleged medical malpractice and poor hospital care. The widow filed a grievance about multiple unsuccessful attempts to draw blood from her husband in addition to a diaper dermatitis at the right groin. An autopsy and additional histological examinations were performed. After considering all findings, the diaper dermatitis was eventually assumed to be a Fox sign caused by acute pancreatitis, and the allegations of medical malpractice were refuted. This case led us to identify another case with suspected cutaneous manifestations in pancreatic disease. We performed immunohistochemical staining on those two cases and six control cases to examine whether there was detectable presence of pancreatic lipase and trypsin in the skin discolorations and whether it could be used as a feasible method to verify skin signs associated with pancreatitis. Based on our findings, a minor disseminated lipase and trypsin staining should be considered regular and is therefore not conclusive of a skin sign associated with pancreatitis. Moreover, trypsin does not seem to be as suitable as lipase for this suggested immunohistochemical method. Nevertheless, this method might be a useful addition for determining the origin of skin discoloration and verifying skin signs associated with pancreatitis.


2008 ◽  
Vol 132 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-191
Author(s):  
Timothy Craig Allen

Abstract The various methods used by risk managers to assist clinicians in handling medicolegal risk, including improving communication with patients and better dealing with medical records issues, are not particularly of benefit to pathologists. An understanding of tort law, the theory of negligence, the principle of standard of care, and the role of the expert witness helps the pathologist generally assess and manage risk and put it into context with daily pathology practice. An understanding of the litigation process and techniques to better handle a deposition and high-risk specimens or diagnoses are of practical value in avoiding a lawsuit or increasing the likelihood for good outcome in medical malpractice litigation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document