Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or... Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or...

Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or...

The judge noted that the expert readily accepted that integral to his reasoning was that he did not believe the claimant as to the symptoms he had...
Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

Podcast Episode 6: In Conversation with Giles Eyre

In the 6th Episode of Expert Matters Podcast, Simon talks with retired Barrister and expert witness trainer, Giles Eyre, who is retiring as an EWI...
The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work

The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work

The court found that a highly respected and hugely experienced histopathologist expert wtiness, who was overburdened with work, had made errors in his...

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.

Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis
Keith Rix 324

Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis

byKeith Rix

Commentary

The detail of this judgment will mainly be of interest to paediatricians, radiologists and clinical pharmacologists as it is another case in which there has been an issue as to the effects of proton pump inhibitors on bone growth.

Its particular value is in its review of the case law from which is derived the requirement that experts address unknown causes in a case of possible non-accidental injury. 

There are some learning points of more general application arising out of the criticisms of the experts and particularly relevant to all single joint experts, not just in jointly appointed experts in the Family Court.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

 

 

 

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.