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
  • [21] HEARSAY EVIDENCE IN EXPERT OPINIONS
    DICK, RM
    JOURNAL OF POLICE SCIENCE AND ADMINISTRATION, 1980, 8 (04): : 378 - 384
  • [22] GRAY ZONE EXPERT OPINIONS
    Darrow, Kaleb R.
    Luo, Leo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2023, 116 (05): : 974 - 974
  • [23] EXPERT OPINIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY
    ALBRECHT, G
    JAHRBUCHER FUR NATIONALOKONOMIE UND STATISTIK, 1966, 179 (06): : 538 - 549
  • [24] Confidence in aggregation of expert opinions
    Budescu, DV
    Rantilla, AK
    ACTA PSYCHOLOGICA, 2000, 104 (03) : 371 - 398
  • [25] EXPERT MEDICAL OPINIONS IN COURT
    RIEGER, HJ
    DEUTSCHE MEDIZINISCHE WOCHENSCHRIFT, 1973, 98 (04) : 176 - 176
  • [26] Synopsis of Expert Opinions and Conclusions
    Skolnick, Phil
    White, David
    Acri, Jane B.
    CNS & NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS-DRUG TARGETS, 2015, 14 (06) : 773 - 776
  • [27] Some expert opinions on the Internet
    Dern, DP
    COMMUNICATIONS NEWS, 1996, 33 (04): : 53 - 53
  • [28] Resolving differing expert opinions
    Montani, Isabelle
    Marquis, Raymond
    Anthonioz, Nicole Egli
    Champod, Christophe
    SCIENCE & JUSTICE, 2019, 59 (01) : 1 - 8
  • [29] Medizinische GutachtenMedical expert opinions
    Andreas J. Gross
    C. Süfke
    H. Schülke
    M. Lindemann
    Zeitschrift für Rheumatologie, 2023, 82 (9) : 776 - 783
  • [30] Balance of opinions in expert panels
    Gong, Qiang
    Yang, Huanxing
    ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2018, 170 : 151 - 154