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
  • [41] The future of DGMKG expert opinions
    Heufelder, M.
    Hoffmann, J.
    MKG-CHIRURG, 2019, 12 (03): : 140 - 142
  • [42] Recommendations For Expert Opinions by the DGUV
    Haider, E.
    Raab, W.
    TRAUMA UND BERUFSKRANKHEIT, 2010, 12 (04) : 221 - 222
  • [43] Expert opinions put to the test
    Campbell, GA
    ABA JOURNAL, 1998, 84 : 32 - 32
  • [44] Indebtedness through Expert Opinions
    Kroeber, Hans-Ludwig
    FORENSISCHE PSYCHIATRIE PSYCHOLOGIE KRIMINOLOGIE, 2014, 8 (03) : 224 - 225
  • [45] Medizinische GutachtenMedical expert opinions
    Andreas J. Gross
    C. Süfke
    H. Schülke
    M. Lindemann
    Die Urologie, 2023, 62 (3) : 305 - 312
  • [46] Experience with expert opinions (and experts)
    Will, C.
    MKG-CHIRURG, 2013, 6 (04): : 269 - 274
  • [47] CONVERGING CONFIDENCE OF EXPERT OPINIONS
    Hart, Gary C.
    King, Stephanie A.
    Hortacsu, Ayse
    STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF TALL AND SPECIAL BUILDINGS, 2009, 18 (02): : 171 - 179
  • [48] Diagnosing gestational diabetes: can expert opinions replace scientific evidence?
    Long, H.
    DIABETOLOGIA, 2011, 54 (09) : 2211 - 2213
  • [49] Pooling expert opinions using Dempster-Shafer theory of evidence
    Mellouli, K
    Elouedi, Z
    SMC '97 CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS - 1997 IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SYSTEMS, MAN, AND CYBERNETICS, VOLS 1-5: CONFERENCE THEME: COMPUTATIONAL CYBERNETICS AND SIMULATION, 1997, : 1900 - 1905
  • [50] Diagnosing gestational diabetes: can expert opinions replace scientific evidence?
    H. Long
    Diabetologia, 2011, 54