Expert evidence. General prerequisites and procedural characteristics for expert opinions

被引:0
|
作者
Ulsenheimer, K [1 ]
机构
[1] Ulsenheimer Friedrich Rechtsanwalte, Munich, Germany
来源
ANAESTHESIST | 2005年 / 54卷 / 11期
关键词
aid to the judge; impartiality; professional competence; medical specialist standards; causality;
D O I
10.1007/s00101-005-0934-y
中图分类号
R614 [麻醉学];
学科分类号
100217 ;
摘要
In view of the boom in medical liability suits, which centre around medical malpractice, the decision of the medical expert is the pivot in the conflict between doctor and patient. Therefore, from a legal point of view it is extremely important that the expert is well prepared for a courtroom appearance. Beginning from a systematic and logical structure of the expert opinion, the most important demands on quality are dealt with: professional competence, objectivity and impartiality, intellectual integrity and intelligibility of speech, duty to give a strictly personal delivery of the opinion, limitation to the medical speciality, no legal comments, no insinuations and strict adherence to the theme. As an aid to the Judge, the expert must have a certain degree of background legal knowledge. This includes the peculiarities of civil and criminal procedures with respect to the burden of proof, the causality of medical or organisational errors in treatment leading to injury or even death of the patient, the significance of the term "a probability bordering on certainty", the meaning of "gross" errors in treatment, the guidelines and the medical standards. The obligation of the medical expert in questions of medical malpractice is not only an extremely responsible and difficult one, but also not without risk for the expert himself. Since August 2002 gross negligent errors by the expert are also liable for compensation in law under 839a of the German Civil Code Book.
引用
收藏
页码:1081 / 1088
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Expert opinions and scientific evidence for colonoscopy key performance indicators
    Rees, Colin J.
    Bevan, Roisin
    Zimmermann-Fraedrich, Katharina
    Rutter, Matthew D.
    Rex, Douglas
    Dekker, Evelien
    Ponchon, Thierry
    Bretthauer, Michael
    Regula, Jaroslaw
    Saunders, Brian
    Hassan, Cesare
    Bourke, Michael J.
    Roesch, Thomas
    GUT, 2016, 65 (12) : 2045 - U171
  • [22] Multi-expert opinions combination based on evidence theory
    Chun-Mei, Lin
    Yue, He
    NEW ADVANCES IN SIMULATION, MODELLING AND OPTIMIZATION (SMO '07), 2007, : 393 - +
  • [23] Procedural aspects of the new regime for the admissibility of expert evidence: what the digital forensic expert needs to know
    Sallavaci, Oriola
    George, Carlisle
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ELECTRONIC SECURITY AND DIGITAL FORENSICS, 2013, 5 (3-4) : 161 - 171
  • [24] Expert Evidence and the Challenge of Procedural Reform in International Dispute Settlement
    Plant, Brendan
    JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE SETTLEMENT, 2018, 9 (03): : 464 - 472
  • [25] Procedural Due Process and the Improper Expert Opinions of Court-Appointed Special Advocates
    Bates, Morgan
    TEXAS LAW REVIEW, 2024, 103 (01) : 189 - 226
  • [26] GRAY ZONE EXPERT OPINIONS
    Blitzblau, Rachel C.
    Horton, Janet K.
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2019, 103 (02): : 295 - 296
  • [27] New developments in expert opinions
    Beickert, R.
    TRAUMA UND BERUFSKRANKHEIT, 2014, 16 : 206 - 211
  • [28] Medizinische GutachtenMedical expert opinions
    Andreas J. Gross
    C. Süfke
    H. Schülke
    M. Lindemann
    HNO, 2023, 71 (9) : 611 - 618
  • [29] GRAY ZONE EXPERT OPINIONS
    Darrow, Kaleb R.
    Luo, Leo
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RADIATION ONCOLOGY BIOLOGY PHYSICS, 2023, 116 (05): : 974 - 974
  • [30] EXPERT OPINIONS ON SOCIAL SECURITY
    ALBRECHT, G
    JAHRBUCHER FUR NATIONALOKONOMIE UND STATISTIK, 1966, 179 (06): : 538 - 549