 |
|
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
|
