In civil cases, the plaintiff must convince the jury of its position with a preponderance of the evidence. A preponderance of the evidence means at least 51%. The burden of proof is different in civil cases than in criminal cases. Medical negligence cannot be determined solely from an unexpected result, an unacceptable result, a failure to cure, a failure to recover or any other situation which might indicate a lack of success of the intervention or care. The three above outcomes are possible with appropriate care and treatment. A deterioration in the patient’s condition does not necessarily indicate medical negligence. There are several possible outcomes from a medical intervention the condition improves, the condition worsens, and the condition remains unchanged. Medical Errors Compared to Medical Negligence If it is determined that a deviation from the standard of care has occurred, a secondary role for the expert witness may be to provide an opinion regarding whether the deviation of the standard of care could have been the cause of the patient’s alleged injury. The question of whether there was a deviation from the standard of care, is often the most crucial decision of the expert witness in medical liability cases. The exception is access to care and health care facilities in underserved or rural areas. The standard of care is most commonly defined as, “that reasonable and ordinary care, skill, and diligence as physicians and surgeons in good standing in the same neighborhood, the same general line of practice, ordinarily have been exercising in like cases.” Nowadays, with the establishment of national boards and greater standardization of practice, there is less local variability. In medical malpractice cases, the defendant’s behavior is compared to the standard of care for that specific situation. Medical negligence requires that the plaintiff establish the following elements:Ī causal connection between the violation of the standard of care in the injury.
Of all of the potential liabilities in medical malpractice, medical negligence is the most common.
These liabilities may be based on negligence, insufficiently informed consent, intentional misconduct, breach of a contract, defamation, divulgence of confidential information, or failure to prevent foreseeable injuries to third parties. Medical malpractice law is based on tort and contract law, and it is commonly understood as liabilities that arise from the delivery of medical care.
EXPERT TESTIMONY MEANING PROFESSIONAL
Many professional medical societies (American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, American College of Emergency Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Society of General Surgeons, American Association of Neurologic Surgeons, American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, American Academy of Ophthalmology, American College of Cardiology, and American College of Radiology) have addressed the issue with recommendations or guidelines. Įvidence-based and experience-based opinions from medical professionals in legal cases have become increasingly important and common. Medical professionals, as members of the medical community, patient advocates, and private citizens, have a professional and ethical responsibility to assist with the civil and criminal judicial processes. It is in the best interest of the legal and medical professions if this testimony, in either a civil or criminal case, is scientifically sound and provided by an unbiased expert witness. If you plan to testify as a forensic expert witness, ensure you are prepared if you are requested to testify in one of the mentioned hearings.Members of the medical profession may be asked to testify sometime during their career. The hearings also enable the court to consider the expert witness’s qualifications and ability to communicate effectively. The Frye standard is used in federal courts and many state courts.ĭaubert and Frye hearings are important to expert witness testimony because they allow the court to weed out unreliable expert testimony. The Frye standard was created in 1923 by the US Supreme Court in the case Frye v. The Frye standard is a set of guidelines used to determine the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Daubert standard is used in federal courts and many state courts.Ī Frye hearing is a legal proceeding in which the admissibility of scientific evidence is determined. The Daubert standard was created in 1993 by the US Supreme Court in the case Daubert v. The Daubert standard is a set of guidelines used to determine expert testimony’s admissibility. A Daubert hearing is a legal proceeding in which the admissibility of expert testimony is determined.
0 kommentar(er)
