Abstract
Evidencing in medical trials for damages is difficult, and it requires not only knowledge in the field of law, but also in the field of medicine. The main impediment to fluent proceeding in medical matters which requires to be strongly emphasised is a vast difficulty for courts in taking evidence by an expert within reasonable time. Such evidence is generally necessary in every case because there is a necessity to learn medical facts from the perspective of specialist knowledge (Article 278 § 1 of CPC). The problematic nature of damages for so called medical errors has gained more and ore significance, both because of the growing number of claims and the damages paid in relation thereto and the rising costs of insurance against those events incurred by healthcare centers. In such legal circumstances, it is worth indicating the extent to which the evidence by an expert doctor is taken in medical proceedings and the significance thereof for a proper course of the proceedings. Nevertheless, frequently opinions by experts are rather far from being objective. Often, as a result of falsely interpreted solidarity of representatives of the profession, experts disregard the lack of knowledge and diligence of a doctor and the organisational omissions in health care centers. Their opinions are very often unclear ambiguous, posing different hypotheses and the possibilities of damage which do not assist the court in properly assessing the events in matters for compensation. Because of that, a higher standard of conduct for expert doctors should be considered, the manner in which they are appointed and an improvement of the effectiveness of their work
Highlights
Evidencing in medical trials for damages is difficult, and it requires knowledge in the field of law, and in the field of medicine
The problematic nature of damages for so called medical errors has gained more and more significance, both because of the growing number of claims and the damages paid in relation thereto and the rising costs of insurance against those events incurred by healthcare centers
It is worth indicating the extent to which the evidence by an expert doctor is taken in medical proceedings and the significance thereof for a proper course of the proceedings
Summary
Krytyka Prawa for Patient’s Rights, a new out-of-court procedure of compensating for medical damage suffered in hospitals was introduced in the Polish law. The main impediment to fluent proceeding in medical matters which requires to be strongly emphasized is a vast difficulty of courts in taking evidence by expert within a reasonable time Such evidence is generally necessary in every case because there is a necessity to learn medical facts from the perspective of specialist knowledge (Article 278 § 1 of CPC). It occurs that the total time of such evidentiary proceedings amounts to a year, or even longer In these circumstances courts turn to court experts or research institutes (various medical academies) for assistance mainly in more complex matters or those requiring a comprehensive interdisciplinary analysis. Czynność lecznicza jako kontratyp, [“The act of treatment as a countertype”] PiM 2008, no. 2, p. 29
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
