Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings

Experts, in particular medical experts, are likely to be familiar with experts’ discussions that take place after the exchange of reports. This...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531 Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531

Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Khan & Ors [2024] EWCA Civ 531

This case is about whether the judge erred in finding that Ms Soophia Khan had capacity to defend proceedings for contempt of court. This is an...
Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

We are pleased to welcome a new Corporate Partner
Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat) Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

Pfizer Inc v Uniqure Biopharma BV [2024] EWHC 2672 (Pat)

The judge in this patent case found that the claimants’ gene therapy expert had developed, quite possibly guided by lawyers, the understanding...
Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Successful Certification candidates receive their certificate from Lord Hodge.
Independence, bias and conflicts of interest Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Independence, bias and conflicts of interest

Hon Mr Justice Trower provides invaluable guidance for Expert Witnesses at the 2024 the Sir Michael Davies lecture.
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...
Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Simon and Sean discuss expert fees and catch up with Dominic Woodhouse from Partners in Costs to talk about cost management and budgeting in civil...
A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

Jerry Ponder uses his 40+ years of experience in fitted interiors to provide expert evidence on the design, product quality, installation and project...
Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Podcast Episode 3: Single Joint Expert

Simon and Sean discuss Single Joint Experts and catch up with two EWI members who act as Single Joint Experts to hear about their experiences, the...

Check out our Case Updates and Member Magazine

Looking for more news relevant to the Expert Witness community? Why not check out our database of cases relevant to Expert Evidence or the latest and previous editions of our member magazine, Expert Matters.

News

Clicking on one of the topics below will display news items relevant to that topic. You can also use the search bar below to identify news items.

Expert witnesses must not act as advocates for the party instructing them
Sean Mosby 1025

Expert witnesses must not act as advocates for the party instructing them

bySean Mosby

 

The Case

The Appellant was appealing her erasure from the register of dentists by the Professional Conduct Committee (PCC) of the General Dental Council (GDC). The main reason for the erasure, which prevents the Appellant from practicing dentistry in England and Wales, was the PCC’s finding that she had retrospectively made handwritten notes (known as “Brown Cards”) about patients, and then sought to persuade the PCC that they were made contemporaneously with the treatment.

 

The case was complicated by agents for the investigators who scanned in the patient notes inaccurately and then subsequently lost or destroyed the original documents.

 

The Expert Evidence

The GDC’s expert evidence was provided by Professor Morgenstein, a dental surgeon who is head of comprehensive dental care at Barts and the Royal London Dental School, and Julian Scott, a specialist in the propriety of dental practice on claiming fees from the NHS.

 

Professor Morganstein

Professor Morganstein advised that GDC standard 4.1 requires dentists to make and keep contemporaneous complete and accurate patient records, either by electronic record or on handwritten Brown Cards. The Professor sought to give his expert opinion on whether the Appellant’s Brown Cards were contemporaneous by basing his conclusions on the style and content of the records. However, he did not assert expertise in the authenticity of documents or that the Brown Cards were faked. Significantly, he suggested that the Brown Cards should be compared with comparable records for the Appellant’s other appointments during the time period under consideration.

 

Mr Scott

In assessing the Brown Cards and other records, Mr Scott asserted that a purpose of his review of the records was to establish the authenticity of the material. He considered that they did not appear to be contemporaneous records for the treatment provided on the date specified. He went through individual records and considered whether they were likely to be genuine or not.

 

Mr Scott also provided his view on whether the original Brown Cards had been included among the documents sent to investigators by the Appellant, based on the likelihood that they would have been scanned into the system had they been present and the apparent condition in a scanned image of a Brown Envelope which would have contained the Brown Cards.

 

Mr Scott withdrew his allegation in relation to backdating the Brown Cards during cross-examination.

 

The Judge’s statements

Mr Scott

The Judge criticised the reasons for Mr Scott’s opinion that the records were not contemporaneous, noting that “none has any logical merit”. He noted that Mr Scott is “not an expert in handwriting or the authenticity of documents generally or in identifying fraudulently backdated Brown Cards in the circumstances of this case”. Mr Scott did not visit the practice to assess comparable Brown Cards, and was not given the original Brown Cards because they were lost or destroyed, so he could not assess the colour of the ink or the age and state of the Envelopes and Cards.

 

The Judge also criticised Mr Scott for providing a view on whether the Brown Cards were among the records provided by the Appellant, when determining the facts was wholly the matter for the PCC and not him. The Judge noted that it was not within Mr Scott’s field of expertise or experience to advise on the likelihood or otherwise of scanning errors, something Mr Scott was prepared to do without any knowledge of how the scanning was done, by whom, under what protocol, and without seeing an index of the original documents. In the Judge’s view “it was inappropriate for Mr Scott to seek to give any evidence on what might have happened [with the scanning] and in doing so he stepped well over the boundary between being an independent expert and an advocate for the party instructing him.”

 

Professor Morganstein

The Judge noted that “Professor Morganstein was no better qualified to opine as a handwriting or document authenticity expert on fraudulently backdated notes on the facts of this case than Mr Scott.” These were matters of pure fact for the tribunal and an expert in handwriting and document authenticity. However, crucially, Professor Morganstein had specifically caveated his opinion on authenticity by advising the GDC to obtain comparable notes from the practice.  

 

Learning points:

  • Expert witnesses should not provide expert advice on areas where they do not hold appropriate and up to date expertise and experience.
  • Expert witnesses should be willing to attend physical sites and review other documents if this will clarify the facts and help them in reaching their conclusions.
  • Expert witnesses should ensure that any expertise or experience they expect to rely upon is clearly set out in their CVs

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.