Perhaps the best way to guarantee medical experts aren't biased
Walter Olson at Point of Law quotes an AMA article about an expert witness who wants to make sure his testimony is correct:
When New York dermatopathologist A. Bernard Ackerman, MD, is called to testify as a medical expert witness, he refuses to know which side the lawyer represents.
It is his way of remaining objective when he evaluates a case. In addition, the academic clinician typically previews his presentation of the facts and his opinion for a student audience, as a way of holding himself accountable.
"I want to let the facts speak for themselves," said Dr. Ackerman, who has testified equally for the defense and the plaintiff in medical liability cases and in other cases where medical expertise is needed, such as criminal cases. Sticking to the facts, he says, prevents a cross-examining lawyer from tripping him up about his opinion being consistent.
Source: PointofLaw.com | PointOfLaw Forum: The scrupulous expert witness
I can't think of any better way to make sure doctors aren't biasing their testimony for one side or the other than to require them to be hired blindly. Unfortunately, I'm sure all sides of the litigation debate would have some objections to this, as would the doctors who make a (good) living testifying exclusively for plaintiffs or defendants.
Comments