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. 23, December 18, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Letters
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (3)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Standards for Medical Expert Testimony

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

To the Editor: In their discussion of the lack of standards for medical expert testimony in tort cases, Drs Kassirer and Cecil1 omit a number of significant points. First, most tort litigation occurs in state courts, and a number of jurisdictions (including California, Florida, and New York) do not follow the Supreme Court's Daubert rulings. Of course, these states encounter many of the same difficulties in evaluating evidence offered by medical experts, but one should not focus entirely on the federal courts.

Second, the authors' brief discussion of the allegedly lower standards of admissibility at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is simply incorrect. In fact, the agency imposes quite rigorous substantiation requirements in making approval and labeling decisions, generally refusing to consider anecdotal reports.2 Although the FDA's adverse event reporting system considers such reports as potential early warning signals3 and it may release preliminary information to medical professionals, the . . . [Full Text of this Article]



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

RELATED ARTICLE

Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony: Disorder in the Courts
Jerome P. Kassirer and Joe S. Cecil
JAMA. 2002;288(11):1382-1387.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Thrombolysis (Tissue Plasminogen Activator) in Stroke: A Medicolegal Quagmire
Weintraub
Stroke 2006;37:1917-1922.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

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