You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 288 No. 11, September 18, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Health Law and Ethics
 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 ISI (17)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related letter
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Health Policy
 •Law and Medicine
 •Alert me on articles by topic

Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony

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).


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

Characteristics of Physicians Who Frequently Act as Expert Witnesses in Neurologic Birth Injury Litigation
Kesselheim and Studdert
Obstet Gynecol 2006;108:273-279.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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

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

Ten Years of Judicial Gatekeeping Under Daubert
Cecil
Am. J. Public Health 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  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.