 |
|
Regulating Physician Expert Witness 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 Commentary on the role of professional organizations in regulating physician expert witness testimony, Drs Kesselheim and Studdert1 assert that the antipathy of professional organizations toward malpractice litigation creates a conflict of interest in regard to expert witness testimony review that cannot be mitigated by procedural safeguards. We disagree.
The authors imply that the goals of diminishing malpractice litigation and promoting scientifically sound expert witness testimony are mutually exclusive. Based on the guidelines of the American Academy of Neurology for expert witness testimony2 and its disciplinary action procedures,3 we believe that these goals are compatible and achievable and do not carry a "deep-seated conflict of interest"1 as long as (1) the standards for the provision and review of expert witness testimony are just, written, and available to all members in advance; (2) all complaints are examined in accordance with the expert witness testimony standards and review . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Dan Larriviere, MD, JD
dgl6t@virginia.edu
Department of Neurology
University of Virginia
Charlottesville
Michael A. Williams, MD
LifeBridge Health Brain & Spine Institute
Baltimore, Maryland
Murray Sagsveen, JD
American Academy of Neurology
St Paul, Minnesota
RELATED ARTICLE
Role of Professional Organizations in Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony
Aaron S. Kesselheim and David M. Studdert
JAMA. 2007;298(24):2907-2909.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTERS
Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony
Arthur J. Hartz and Michael Green
JAMA. 2008;299(14):1667-1668.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony—Reply
Aaron S. Kesselheim and David M. Studdert
JAMA. 2008;299(14):1668.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
