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
  • [41] Are new states more corrupt? Expert opinions versus firms' experiences
    Adhikari, Tamanna
    Breen, Michael
    Gillanders, Robert
    APPLIED ECONOMICS LETTERS, 2019, 26 (02) : 131 - 134
  • [42] Recommendations for expert opinions about predictions: Empirically based recommendations for forensic expert opinions on legal prognosis
    Kroeber, Hans-Ludwig
    Brettel, Hauke
    Rettenberger, Martin
    Stuebner, Susanne
    FORENSISCHE PSYCHIATRIE PSYCHOLOGIE KRIMINOLOGIE, 2019, 13 (04) : 334 - 342
  • [43] Recommendations for expert opinions about predictions: Legal framework for expert opinions about predictions in criminal proceedings
    Boetticher, Axel
    Koller, Matthias
    Boehm, Klaus Michael
    Brettel, Hauke
    Doelling, Dieter
    Hoeffler, Katrin
    Mueller-Metz, Reinhard
    Pfister, Wolfgang
    Schneider, Ursula
    Schoech, Heinz
    Wolf, Thomas
    FORENSISCHE PSYCHIATRIE PSYCHOLOGIE KRIMINOLOGIE, 2019, 13 (04) : 305 - 333
  • [44] Elicitation of expert opinions for uncertainty and risk
    Nikolopoulos, K
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF FORECASTING, 2004, 20 (01) : 143 - 144
  • [45] Glasses as Relevant Factor in Expert Opinions
    Burggraf, M. H.
    KLINISCHE MONATSBLATTER FUR AUGENHEILKUNDE, 2018, 235 (02) : 202 - 204
  • [46] OHIO COURT ALLOWS EXPERT OPINIONS
    不详
    TRIAL, 1986, 22 (11): : 96 - 96
  • [47] Contesting Confessions: Opinions of Expert Witnesses
    Kaplan, Jeffrey
    Lundy, Jessica
    JOURNAL OF FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH AND PRACTICE, 2024,
  • [48] The analysis of expert opinions' consensus quality
    Kozierkiewicz-Hetmanska, Adrianna
    INFORMATION FUSION, 2017, 34 : 80 - 86
  • [49] Expert opinions on the applicability of the European guidelines on postoperative delirium in Australia and New Zealand
    Pillinger, Neil L.
    Sanders, Robert D.
    ANAESTHESIA AND INTENSIVE CARE, 2025,
  • [50] "EXPERT OPINIONS" (formerly known as "Debates")
    不详
    PLASMA PROCESSES AND POLYMERS, 2016, 13 (12) : 1212 - 1212