Appointment Of Experts Research Articles

The use of experts in medical malpractice litigation in Japan.

In medical malpractice litigation, the cooperation of medical experts is important. However, the appointment of experts has become problematic in Japan, apparently because many medical experts refuse to act in this capacity. However, this supposition has not until now been supported by quantitative evidence, since the fact that so few judgments in Japan are published made it impossible to investigate the situation. Therefore, we aim to show the state of the use of experts in medical malpractice litigation using objective data. Over the last ten years, the rate of the use of experts has averaged only 22.5%, varying according to region. Experts were used in 24.5% of cases involving an attorney on the patient's side, and in only 3.4% of cases where no attorney was used. The success rate of patients was higher when experts were adopted (39.1%) than when they were not (29.9%). The length of litigation involving experts was 4.0 years, and 2.7 years when no expert was involved. This research suggested the necessity of establishing a formal cooperation system as soon as possible in Japan with no regional maldistribution.

Chas. T. Main International, Inc. v. Khuzestan Water & Power Authority

Claimant, Chas. T. Main International, Inc., filed a claim against respondent, Khuzestan Water & Power Authority, in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal for amounts allegedly due under a contract for the provision of engineering and construction management services. Claimant contended that an exchange of documents and other conduct of the parties demonstrated the existence of a contractual relationship, despite respondent’s failure to sign a formal written agreement that had been drafted by claimant and allegedly approved by respondent. Respondent sought dismissal of the claim both on jurisdictional grounds and on the merits, contending that no contract existed since the respondent had never signed the formal agreement. In an interlocutory award, Chamber Two held: that respondent’s conduct, including the authorization and ratification of claimant’s services, demonstrated the existence of a contract, and that respondent’s refusal to pay for claimant’s services constituted a compensable breach of that contract. The Chamber further determined that the appointment of experts was necessary to ascertain the value of the services rendered.

Corporacion del Cobre v. Braden Copper Corporation and Société Groupement d'Importation des Métaux

Sovereign immunity — Foreign States and State-owned corporations and their property — Expropriation of assets by foreign State — Action brought by American company for recovery of assets from Chilean State copper corporation — Whether entitled to jurisdictional immunity — Acts iure imperii and iure gestionis — Attachment of funds payable to State corporation for sales of copper — Whether State corporation entitled to immunity from execution — Appointment of expert to determine use of funds — Whether expropriation by a foreign State without adequate compensation can be recognised in municipal courts — The law of France

Procureur de la République and Others v. Liamco and Others

78 Sovereign immunity — Property of Foreign States and State-owned corporations — Enforcement of arbitral award against Libyan State — Immunity from execution — Attachment of funds in hands of Libyan State-owned undertakings — Whether such funds immune from attachment — Test of whether funds allocated for sovereign activities or derived from private commercial activities — Whether present impossibility of making such a breakdown prevents attachment — Appointment of experts to determine use of funds — The law of France

Germany v. Poland.

Permanent Court of International Justice — Judgment — Appointment of Experts — Articles 48 and 50 of the Statute.

Germany v. Poland.

Damages — Measure of Damages — Damages for Loss of Profits — Distinction between Expropriation and Unlawful Deprivation of Property — Measure of Damages in Consequence of an Unlawful Act — Cumulative Damage of Interdependent Undertakings — Whether the Court can Rely on the Data Supplied by the Parties — Changes in the Value of the Property Taken Away — Offers of Compensation Made during Abortive Negotiations — Appointment of Experts — Indeterminate and Contingent Damages.

Appointment of Expert Witnesses by the Court

Appointment of Expert Witnesses by the Court