New developments in expert opinions

被引:2
|
作者
Beickert, R. [1 ]
机构
[1] BG Unfallklin Murnau, Prof Kuntscher Str 8, D-82418 Murnau, Germany
关键词
Occupational accidents; Expert opinion; Pre-existing damage; Risk assessment; Essential component causes;
D O I
10.1007/s10039-013-2033-7
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Background. Precedent setting decisions by the Federal Social Court from 2005 and 2006 are still not completely followed everywhere in the practice of assessment of occupational accidents. Accident. The legal term accident is not completely compatible with the commonly used parlance and also not with the medical scientific view of "an accident is present if an internal cause cannot be found". Pre-existing damage. If constitutional alterations or degenerative disease disorders must be taken into consideration in addition to the accident, a strict separation must be made between predisposal to damage (clinically silent pre-existing damage) and pre-existing diseases (clinically manifest pre-existing damage). An accident can only exacerbate a pre-existing disease but not a predisposed damage. Causality testing. This is carried in two stages. In the first step the direction and intensity of external violence must be questioned. If the violence was theoretically capable of damaging healthy tissue in the same manner then pre-existing damage becomes insignificant; the accident is legally essential and the reverse conclusion is impossible. The second step in causality testing is a detailed analysis of the findings presenting as facts under the aspect whether and to what extent each individual fact is indicative for or against the causality. A result should be expected as the conclusion in the mental form of a pair of scales.
引用
收藏
页码:206 / 211
页数:6
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] EXPERT OPINIONS
    ONEILL, C
    ABA JOURNAL, 1987, 73 : 14 - 14
  • [2] Expert Opinions in Court: Liability of the Expert
    Schiltenwolf, Marcus
    Beckmann, Nickolas
    Gaidzik, Peter
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ORTHOPADIE UND UNFALLCHIRURGIE, 2017, 155 (06): : 727 - 731
  • [3] OPINIONS ON THE TOPIC OF FORECASTING AND ANALYSIS MODELS - NEW DEVELOPMENTS
    LOISTI, O
    MARTINI, E
    MERTENS, P
    STEINLE, W
    BETRIEBSWIRTSCHAFTLICHE FORSCHUNG UND PRAXIS, 1995, 47 (03): : 325 - 335
  • [4] THE IMPLANT IN EXPERT OPINIONS
    SINGER, R
    KRISTEN, K
    DEUTSCHE ZAHNARZTLICHE ZEITSCHRIFT, 1983, 38 (02): : 119 - 122
  • [5] Combining expert opinions
    Arkes, HR
    Mumpower, JL
    Stewart, TR
    SCIENCE, 1997, 275 (5299) : 463 - 463
  • [6] 4 EXPERT OPINIONS
    JOHNSON, J
    AMDAHL, G
    CRAY, S
    POOR, V
    THORNTON, J
    DATAMATION, 1982, 28 (13): : 143 - &
  • [7] Medical expert opinions
    Gross, Andreas J.
    Sufke, C.
    Schulke, H.
    Lindemann, M.
    UROLOGIE, 2023, 62 (03): : 305 - 312
  • [8] Guidelines for expert opinions
    Schneider, Wolfgang
    Becker, Daniela
    Dohrenbusch, Ralf
    Freyberger, Harald J.
    Guendel, Harald
    Henningsen, Peter
    Kowalewsky, Sonja
    Koellner, Volker
    PSYCHOTHERAPEUT, 2010, 55 (05): : 380 - 388
  • [9] Medical expert opinions
    Gross, Andreas J.
    Suefke, C.
    Schuelke, H.
    Lindemann, M.
    ZEITSCHRIFT FUR RHEUMATOLOGIE, 2023, 82 (09): : 776 - 783
  • [10] Medical expert opinions
    Gross, Andreas J.
    Suefke, C.
    Schuelke, H.
    Lindemann, M.
    HNO, 2023, : 611 - 618