Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “EXPERT TESTIMONY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,189 records · Page 66Linked to original sources
PubMed2005

Extent and determinants of physician participation in expert witness testimony.

OBJECTIVES: In the recent past, law firms have had difficulties in finding physicians to review malpractice cases and serve as expert witnesses. Over the last few years, however, many clinicians have had a decline in their income, causing some physicians to seek alternative sources of revenue such as the review of legal cases. The purpose of this study was to qualify and quantify the extent of physician participation in legal activities. METHODS: We conducted a survey of 1,000 Maryland internal medicine physicians. The survey consisted of 24 items designed to collect information on demographics, practice patterns, income variables, and participation in legal review. RESULTS: Twenty-four percent of our respondents reported engaging in expert witness testimony/review to supplement their incomes. Engagement was significantly associated with internal medicine sub-specialty practice, academic practice, a self-perception that personal income was higher than the income of colleagues, and being in practice for 11 to 20 years. Economic factors were not found to be associated with engaging in these activities. CONCLUSIONS: Physician participation in legal review and expert witness activities is significant and appears not to be determined by economic factors. Both the positive effects of such participation on the legal system and the potential ethical concerns require further study.

Ethics, Medical↗
PubMed2001

The role of the expert witness: an update.

As in the past, the principle role of the scientist in the courtroom is to assist attorneys, judges, and jurors in understanding the complex scientific and technical issues before them. In the last decade, however, changes in the law and the increasing technical complexity of many disputes have introduced new factors that influence the preparation and presentation of expert testimony. The most significant change in the law regarding expert testimony is arguably the 1993 Supreme Court ruling in Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Under Daubert, scientific evidence may be submitted to the jury if the judge finds that it rests on a reliable foundation and is relevant to the task at hand. Reliability and relevance replace the older requirement of "general acceptance by the scientific community," although "general acceptance" remains a factor in the consideration of reliability. The tests of reliability and relevance and their impact on the preparation of expert opinions are discussed in the context of increasingly complex radiation cases, with emphasis on cases involving teams of experts.

Expert Testimony↗