The Continuing Problem of Expert Evidence in Medical Litigation - A Surgical Perspective with Reference to Daubert.

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-07-01
Arthur Richardson, Helen Pham, Michael Hollands
{"title":"The Continuing Problem of Expert Evidence in Medical Litigation - A Surgical Perspective with Reference to Daubert.","authors":"Arthur Richardson, Helen Pham, Michael Hollands","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The tension that exists between the medical and legal professions regarding expert evidence is longstanding. In this article, we will examine some of the issues regarding expert evidence particularly as it relates to matters involving surgeons. Many of the current aspects of the Australian uniform evidence law in relation to expert testimony were based on the Federal Rules of Evidence promulgated in the United States in 1975. We will discuss some of the problems of expert evidence in surgical matters, particularly in New South Wales, and offer some thoughts on how the so-called Daubert trilogy could form a basis on which to re-examine the concept of an \"expert\". Our analysis offers suggestions for further improvements to the process of adducing expert evidence in claims involving surgical matters.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 2","pages":"472-487"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The tension that exists between the medical and legal professions regarding expert evidence is longstanding. In this article, we will examine some of the issues regarding expert evidence particularly as it relates to matters involving surgeons. Many of the current aspects of the Australian uniform evidence law in relation to expert testimony were based on the Federal Rules of Evidence promulgated in the United States in 1975. We will discuss some of the problems of expert evidence in surgical matters, particularly in New South Wales, and offer some thoughts on how the so-called Daubert trilogy could form a basis on which to re-examine the concept of an "expert". Our analysis offers suggestions for further improvements to the process of adducing expert evidence in claims involving surgical matters.

医疗诉讼中专家证据的持续问题--从外科角度看多伯特案。
医学界和法律界在专家证据方面的矛盾由来已久。在本文中,我们将探讨有关专家证据的一些问题,特别是涉及外科医生的问题。目前澳大利亚统一证据法中与专家证词有关的许多方面都是以美国 1975 年颁布的《联邦证据规则》为基础的。我们将讨论外科事务中专家证据的一些问题,特别是在新南威尔士州,并就所谓的 "多伯特三部曲 "如何构成重新审查 "专家 "概念的基础提出一些想法。我们的分析为进一步改进在涉及外科事项的索赔中援引专家证据的程序提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信