Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In last month's issue we looked at a pending complaint made against a forensic psychologist to the ethics committee of his professional organization by an examinee unhappy with the psychologist's recommendation. We also explored case law in the Seventh Circuit that holds the decisions of professional organizations are not reviewable by the courts as long as the person being disciplined was given procedural due process. In this month's installment, we see how this state of affairs not only negatively impacts the professional prospects of the medical expert but also the free expression of valid medical opinions in the courtroom and other comparable settings.
The latest news of interest to you and your practice.
Increasingly, expert witnesses' opinions are subject to the scrutiny of the professional organizations to which they belong. This scrutiny can act as a check on their proffered expert testimony. The requirements of admissibility of expert opinion at trial have long been subject to the requirements of <i>Daubert v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceutical Inc.</i>, 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and after admission, the opinions are often second-guessed by an unhappy client in a subsequent lawsuit, as in LLMD of <i>Michigan v. Jackson-Cross Co.</i>, 740 A.2d 186 (Pa. 1999). Now we're finding that the further review of these same opinions by the expert's own specialty professional organization is being used increasingly as a new strategy of attack by the expert's unhappy opponents.
Features
The Associated Press has reported that medical students and physicians are now being taught that an open acknowledgment of regret for medical errors, even an apology, may help doctors avoid malpractice lawsuits. In Illinois, malpractice reform legislation includes a concept known as "Sorry Works," recommending that an apology be offered when mistakes are made or untoward results occur. Within the overall context of medical malpractice risk management, a recent evolution in dispute resolution philosophy suggests that direct, forthright communications between physician and patient may reduce the risk of future litigation.
Features
Court rulings across the country are showing that the increased use of genetic testing has substantially expanded physicians' liability for failure to counsel patients about hereditary disorders. In recent years courts in Minnesota, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Utah, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania and Virginia have ruled on medical malpractice cases stemming from genetic testing issues. Decisions issued in those courts have tried to carve out rules on when physicians have a duty to relay information gleaned from genetic testing.
Features
Part Two of a Two-Part Article. In last month's newsletter, we looked at the symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and the incentives plaintiffs who claim such injuries may have to exaggerate their symptoms. In this month's conclusion, we see how forensic experts test for and detect this type of fraud on defendants and their insurers.
Features
Recent rulings of interest to you and your practice.