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 1,513 records · Page 84Linked to original sources
PubMed1984

The treating psychiatrist as forensic evaluator.

Much has been made in the literature of the importance of "objective" or "impartial" expert psychiatric testimony in forensic psychiatric cases; one result of this emphasis is a strong feeling that a treating physician cannot present unbiased testimony in court on issues such as competency to stand trial and especially criminal responsibility. Many states have explicit regulations designed to ensure that expert psychiatric witnesses who testify in criminal cases are not contaminated by past (or even the potential of future) treatment relationships with defendants. The author argues that such policies often prevent mentally ill defendants from receiving treatment from psychiatrists with the most experience in working with forensic psychiatric patients; and that the opportunity to treat as well as to evaluate such patients might well attract more treating psychiatrists to the forensic science field.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1996

The Rorschach in contemporary forensic psychology.

Recent empirical data attest to the fact that the Rorschach is frequently used in expert witness testimony. Popularity of the Rorschach in forensic psychology is evident in the Psychological Abstracts database.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed1992

[Expert witness in cases of rape].

The decision to try a rape case in court may depend on the medico-legal evidence documented by a doctor. Generally, doctors have little knowledge of expectations and requirements in court regarding testimony and expert opinion. In 1990, the Norwegian Directorate of Health recommended that victims of rape and violence all over the country--independent of police notification--be offered a medical and a medico-legal examination and follow-up. The Oslo Emergency Hospital has practised this health service for six years. The article describes the Oslo routine as a basis for doctors with little or no knowledge of the subject. Rape trauma, a variant of post-traumatic stress disturbance, manifests over time as physical, psychological and social reactions which influence the patient's health. The doctor must therefore follow the patient over time in order to apply this diagnosis. Rape trauma may be unknown to the court; a reason why the doctor should inform the prosecutor if it is decided that the case is to be tried in court. In order to document rape trauma as evidence the doctor must be called as an expert medical witness and not as an ordinary witness.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2001

Acute care crisis simulation for jury education.

A major impediment to appropriate adjudication in medical malpractice cases is the large difference in knowledge and background of the expert witness compared to judges, other litigants and juries. Such disparities make it plausible for an expert witness to support an issue, even in defiance of common sense. The most basic understanding of the atmosphere and practices surrounding critical events and the routine procedures, techniques and equipment which are employed in critical situations is absent. (McAbee GN: Improper expert medical testimony: existing and proposed mechanisms of oversight. Journal of Legal Medicine 19: 257-272, 1998).

Education↗
PubMed2002

US legal principles and confidentiality of the peer review process.

When drawn into other parties' litigation or investigations, journals often receive requests or subpoenas for confidential peer review documents. We describe reasons for such requests and reasons that journals resist producing confidential documents, ways that journals respond, and steps that journals can take to minimize third-party breaches of journals' confidential processes. We discuss legal principles on which resistance may be based in the United States, including the journalist's privilege, the scholar's privilege, the burdensomeness of response, and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which protect against attempts to obtain expert opinion testimony without compensation. Illustrative cases are described in which courts affirmed the confidentiality of peer review conducted by journals.

Confidentiality↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?

Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and other cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.

Antiemetics↗
PubMed2001

Application of the Supreme Court's Daubert criteria in radiation litigation.

In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court set forth the standard for determining the admissibility of expert scientific evidence in litigation. This standard is known as the Daubert criteria, named after the pertinent case, Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Daubert criteria require the courts to determine whether an expert's testimony reflects scientific knowledge, whether his/her findings are derived by the scientific method, and whether the work product is based on good science. The Daubert criteria are especially important in radiation litigation because issues involving radiation doses and effects are often complex and thus a jury will typically rely heavily on the analysis and opinions of experts. According to the Daubert criteria, scientific opinions must be based on a methodology that has a valid, testable hypothesis; has been subject to peer review; and is generally accepted in the scientific community. Additionally, the expert must be qualified to present opinions based on the methodology. Although the application of the Daubert criteria in radiation litigation is highly dependent on the specific court and judge presiding over the case, there have been recent high-profile cases in which application of the criteria has resulted in the dismissal of analysis and opinions offered by scientific experts. Reasons for the dismissals have included basic scientific errors such as failure of the expert to consider all possible explanations for an observed phenomenon, the selective use of data by the expert, and the failure to acknowledge and resolve inconsistencies between the expert's results and those of other investigators. This paper reviews the Daubert criteria as they apply to radiation litigation and provides examples of the application of the criteria from recent judgments involving the Three Mile Island and Hanford Downwinders cases.

Expert Testimony↗
PubMed2001

Jurisprudence issues in forensic odontology.

This article exposes the dental profession in the legal environment and the rules that control the acceptance or rejection of expert witness testimony. Written by a practicing dentist and attorney, the author believes that the new forensic dentistry aspirant should develop mentoring relationships with more experienced medico-legal professionals to supplement traditional dental education.

Bites, Human↗
PubMed1987

The twilight zone between scientific certainty and legal sufficiency: should a jury determine the causation of schizophrenia?

In lawsuits involving complex scientific issues of causation, dispute resolution requires that a final decision be reached in each case, regardless of whether science is able to provide definitive answers to the questions of causation raised at trial. Proving causation before science has is a concept that scientists may find disconcerting and foreign to some of their basic assumptions. This paper explores the foregoing issues, discusses medical versus legal concepts of causation, outlines the legal tests for admissibility of novel scientific evidence (including Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Frye test of general acceptance by the relevant scientific community), and presents a toxic tort case in which expert psychiatric testimony addressed the issue of causation of schizophrenia. The paper articulates concerns about the "misleading aura of certainty" posed by scientific evidence and the burden of decision making that is cast upon the legal system in such scientific issue cases.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Medical malpractice in the age of technology: how specialty societies can make a difference.

In the United States, medical malpractice litigation, and the rising cost of malpractice insurance, is a crisis that threatens to restrict patient access to high-risk services, especially obstetrics and certain surgical procedures. Radiation Oncology, though a small specialty, is very technologically oriented. Because the history of product liability and malpractice litigation in this country parallels the technologic revolution, practitioners of this specialty are clearly at risk for litigation. Because legislative relief is unlikely to be forthcoming in the near future, many specialty societies have assumed the responsibility for devising means to protect members from frivolous law suits, without compromising a patient's right to due process. To date, Radiation Oncology societies have not taken a leadership role in this movement, preferring instead to cede this responsibility to the American College of Radiology. Opportunities exist for specialty societies to define standards of care and establish guidelines for expert witness testimony. To date, the courts have been supportive of these efforts. Herein, we summarize some of the salient issues of the malpractice crisis facing Radiation Oncology and offer suggestions for change within the specialty to better address the malpractice problem.

Brachytherapy↗