 |
|
Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
To the Editor: In their Commentary, Drs Kesselheim and Studdert1 recommend the use of bodies consisting of impartial highly credentialed experts to regulate physician expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases. For a number of reasons, however, determinations made by regulating experts may have problems similar to testimony from physician witnesses.
First, as the authors recognize, the impartiality of regulating experts is likely to be incomplete.1 Physicians willing to participate in reviewing medical malpractice testimony may have their own agenda. Second, physicians have opinions about how medicine should be practiced, but they often do not know the opinions or practices of other physicians.2 Therefore, the opinions of 1 or 2 physicians may not be adequate to determine the relevant standard of care, which the law bases on customary care or reasonable care. Third, it is often difficult to recruit expert physicians for service in legal cases.
An alternative method to evaluate . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Arthur J. Hartz, MD, PhD
arthur.hartz@hci.utah.edu
Huntsman Cancer Institute
University of Utah
Salt Lake City
Michael Green, JD
Wake Forest University School of Law
Winston-Salem, North Carolina
RELATED ARTICLE
Role of Professional Organizations in Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony
Aaron S. Kesselheim and David M. Studdert
JAMA. 2007;298(24):2907-2909.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTERS
Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony
Dan Larriviere, Michael A. Williams, and Murray Sagsveen
JAMA. 2008;299(14):1667.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony—Reply
Aaron S. Kesselheim and David M. Studdert
JAMA. 2008;299(14):1668.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
