Expert witnesses professional and methodological mistakes in medical malpractice cases
Norbert Moravanský
Comenius UniversityLucia Laciaková
Inštitút forenzných medicínskych expertízViktor Rekeň
Comenius University and St. Elisabeth’s Cancer InstituteLudvík Juříček
DTI UniversityPeter Kováč
Trnava UniversityLuděk Vrtík
University Hospital BratislavaJozef Čentéš
Comenius University in BratislavaAbstract
As any case of alleged medical malpractice, whether in a civil or criminal proceeding, cannot be resolved without involving the expert witness who assists the police, office of public prosecution or the court to rule on merits, the authors
aim to identify the most significant questionable and incorrect practices of expert witnesses based on the review of 11 years dataset (2008–2019) consisting of 3098 expert opinions and expert testimonies in both criminal and civil proceedings in Slovakia. To the necessary extent, the legal framework
for expert witnesses in Slovakia is also presented. The authors also aim to focus on the significant findings of the dataset, such as the most frequent specialities in which alleged malpractice occurred, which are surgery, emergency medicine, anaesthesiology and intensive care, gynaecology and obstetrics, internal medicine, neurology and paediatrics. The publication is also aimed at the most frequent incorrect or questionable practices of expert witnesses, such as ex-post case analysis, questionable practice related to the obtaining of
medical records, improper use of consultants by the expert witness, misinterpretation of the autopsy records and autopsy diagnoses and the deficiencies in the processing the case file by the expert witness. The authors focused on important findings from the dataset, such as the specializations where the alleged medical malpractice most frequently occur-
red, i.e. surgery, emergency medicine, anesthesiology and intensive care, gynaecology and obstetrics, internal medicine, neurology and paediatrics. The publication deals with the most common erroneous or questionable expert
practices, such as ex-post analysis of the case, questionable practice related to obtaining medical records, inappropriate selection of consultants by an expert, misinterpretation of documentation from post-mortem examinations and de-
ficiencies in the preparation of an opinion based on the case file by a court expert.
Keywords:
medical law, medical malpractice, expert witness, professional misconduct, SlovakiaReferences
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Medical Liability, Guidelines for Expert Witness Google Scholar
Testimony, “Pediatrics” 1989, Vol. 83(2). Google Scholar
American Medical Association, Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs, E-6.01: Contingent Google Scholar
Physician Fees, {in:] Code of Medical Ethics, American Medical Association Chicago, IL 1994. Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Medical Liability, Guidelines for Expert Witness Google Scholar
Testimony in Medical Liability Cases (S93-3), “Pediatrics” 1994, Vol. 94(5). Google Scholar
American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Medical Liability. Consil of Medical Speciality Google Scholar
Societes, Statement on Qualifications and Guidelines for the Physician Expert Witness, Council od Medical Speciality Societies, Lake Bluff, IL 1989. Google Scholar
Bal S.B., The Expert Witness in Medical Malpractice Litigation, “Clon Orthop Relat Res” 2009, Google Scholar
Vol. 467. Google Scholar
Čentéš J. et al. Trestné právo procesné. Všeobecná a osobitná časť. 2. Vydanie [Criminal Google Scholar
Procedural Law. General and Special Part. 2nd edition], Heuréka, Šamorín 2012. Google Scholar
Committee on Medical Liability. American Academy of Pediatrics, Guidelines for Expert Witness Google Scholar
Testimony in Medical Malpractice Litigation, “Pediatrics” 2002, Vol. 124(1). Google Scholar
Faden R.R., Beauchamp T.L., King N.M.P., A history and Theory of Informed Consent, Oxford Google Scholar
University Press, New York, NY 1986. Google Scholar
Glabman M., Scared Silent: The Clash Between Malparctice Lawsuits and Expert Testimony, Google Scholar
“Physician Exec” 2003, Vol. 29. Google Scholar
Hansen M., Experts are Liable, Too, “ABA Journal” November, 2000. Google Scholar
Hanzlick R., Dead Investigation: Systems and Procedures, CRC Press, Taylor and Fransic Group, Google Scholar
Humeník I., Kováč P. et al., Zákon o zdravotnej starostlivosti. Komentár. 1. vydanie [Act on Health Google Scholar
Care. Commentary. 1st edition], C. H. Beck, Bratislava 2015. Google Scholar
Kováč P., Medical Law in Slovakia, Kluwer Law International, Alpen an der Rhijn 2012. Google Scholar
Narang S.K., Paul S.R.. Expert Witness Participation in Civil and Criminal Proceedings, Google Scholar
“Pediatrics” 2017, Vol. 139 (3), e20164122. Google Scholar
Vrtík L., Čambal M., Grgáč I. et al., Základy chirurgie [Fundamentals of Surgery], Univerzita Google Scholar
Komenského v Bratislave, 2019. Google Scholar
Comenius University
Inštitút forenzných medicínskych expertíz
Comenius University and St. Elisabeth’s Cancer Institute
DTI University
Trnava University
University Hospital Bratislava
Comenius University in Bratislava
