This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (20)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letter  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Health Policy  • Law and Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Disorder in the Courts

Jerome P. Kassirer, MD; Joe S. Cecil, PhD,JD

JAMA. 2002;288:1382-1387.

Several recent decisions by the US Supreme Court have strengthened the ability of federal courts to consider medical testimony regarding injuries associated with exposure to toxic substances. Judges are expected to examine the basis of all expert testimony before it is introduced at trial to ensure that it meets the same standards of intellectual rigor that professionals use outside the courtroom. However, courts have been inconsistent in measuring this testimony against the standards of medical practice, especially when courts consider testimony that is not supported by clinical trials or epidemiological studies. A number of courts have required standards for expert testimony that exceed those that physicians use in ordinary clinical decision making. In this article, we illustrate such inconsistencies across federal courts by contrasting different decisions in cases involving similar facts and expert testimony. We argue that there may be good reason to require a standard of admissibility that exceeds the standards of ordinary clinical decision making, but such requirements are not faithful to the mandate of the Supreme Court. Courts with especially demanding standards are misled if they believe that they are fairly representing medical practice. Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries.

Author Affiliations: Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Mass, and Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn (Dr Kassirer), and Federal Judicial Center, Washington, DC (Dr Cecil).

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTER

Standards for Medical Expert Testimony
Lars Noah, Michael I. Weintraub, Elliot M. Levine, Jerome P. Kassirer, and Joe S. Cecil
JAMA. 2002;288(23):2971-2972.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Expert Witness Participation in Civil and Criminal Proceedings
Committee on Medical Liability and Risk Management
Pediatrics 2009;124:428-438.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Manufacturing Uncertainty: Contested Science and the Protection of the Public's Health and Environment
Michaels and Monforton
AJPH 2005;95:S39-S48.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

What Has a Decade of Daubert Wrought?
Berger
AJPH 2005;95:S59-S65.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Ten Years of Judicial Gatekeeping Under Daubert
Cecil
AJPH 2005;95:S74-S80.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Rating the strength of scientific evidence: relevance for quality improvement programs
Lohr
Int J Qual Health Care 2004;16:9-18.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Miasmatic Expert Witness
Berlin
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003;181:29-35.
FULL TEXT  

Bearing False Witness
Berlin
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003;180:1515-1521.
FULL TEXT  

Standards for Medical Expert Testimony
Noah et al.
JAMA 2002;288:2971-2972.
FULL TEXT