"An expert is an ordinary fellow from another town." (Mark Twain) Expert evidence in medical claims will be required to commence almost any case involving professional negligence, and as modern medical practice, in all of its guises, becomes increasingly more litigious, expert medical witnesses are required more frequently. Expert evidence is an essential element of advancing, or defending, a clinical negligence claim. There is a lack of guidance for physicians in this jurisdiction in how to prepare and act as an expert witness, to such an extent that the Medical Protection Society (MPS) has called for a wider pool of expert medical witnesses in the Irish courts system (1). This follows a recent warning from Mr. Justice Collins in a Court of Appeal judgement (2) that a significant change of culture on expert evidence was needed. The MPS has called on the Health Service Executive to support doctors in undertaking expert-witness training and to maintain a central list of experts (1). The aim of this article is to provide a comprehensive understanding of the role and duties of the expert witness, by using guidance from various jurisdictions, while also discussing the penalties that may ensue if they are not fulfilled. Flawed evidence can lead to miscarriages of justice (3) and, in turn, to a lack of confidence in justice and a degradation of the rule of law. This is why expert evidence is absolutely fundamental to the rule of law, as flawed expert evidence can lead to a court acting in good faith but reaching an unsound decision. Physicians serving as expert witnesses must therefore fully grasp the scope and significance of their role-not only to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of their profession but, most importantly, to fulfil their duty to patients.

ABSTRACT In the judicial context, expert evidence is of fundamental importance, as it serves to clarify technical issues and provide impartial information. The topic of Orthotics, Prosthetics, and Special Materials (OPME) is particularly complex. Although normative frameworks exist to guide their requisition, legal disputes often arise concerning the selection criteria and quantities of these materials, particularly in healthcare-related litigation. This study aims to present a legal case involving the requisition of OPME in the field of oral and maxillofacial surgery—an area within dentistry that has experienced a marked increase in judicialization in recent years. This trend underscores the growing relevance of expert evidence in such cases. Conclusion: Expert testimony is essential for resolving factual and technical questions related to medical procedures requested or performed within the healthcare system. Given that such procedures frequently involve high costs, impartial expert evaluation is necessary to determine the appropriateness of their indication. When conducted rigorously and concisely, this evaluation becomes a key tool for judicial decision-making. Keywords: Expert Testimony. Legal Process. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons.

Forensic evidence, long considered a cornerstone of criminal justice, has faced increasing scrutiny as recent studies and reports expose significant flaws in its scientific foundation. Techniques such as latent fingerprint analysis, microscopic hair comparison, and ballistics matching, which had been widely accepted for decades, are now being challenged for their lack of empirical validation. Yet, despite the growing acknowledgement of widespread issues affecting the reliability and validity of many types of forensic evidence, there are surprisingly few successful challenges to the admissibility of this type of forensic evidence, and, when the evidence is challenged, it is often found to be admissible. In the United States, Daubert and Rule 702 mandate that expert evidence be based on reliable principles and methods, but many courts have failed to rigorously apply these standards, often deferring to precedent rather than conducting a thorough analysis of the scientific validity of forensic techniques. This article argues that cognitive biases play a significant role in the US judicial system’s continued acceptance of unreliable forensic evidence. In particular, judges may rely on precedent as a heuristic – or cognitive shortcut – to admit unreliable forensic evidence, even in the face of new scientific evidence challenging the validity of that evidence. In this way, what appears to be deference to precedent may instead be the impact of various cognitive biases on the judge’s decision making. The discussion also considers how the bias blind spot contributes to judges’ reluctance to reject longstanding, but scientifically flawed, forensic techniques. Notwithstanding these challenges, judicial education on scientific standards, greater diversity on the bench, and a heightened awareness of cognitive biases and debiasing strategies could help mitigate these issues and promote more rigorous evaluation of forensic evidence in the courtroom.

Complex nocturnal behaviour - issues with expert evidence and the duty to the court.

This study aims to explore the nutritional adequacy of food served in Lebanese prisons. A mixed-method approach, using both qualitative and quantitative instruments, was used. Diet plans provided by Roumieh Central Prison in 2019 and 2021 were analyzed using Nutritionist Pro™ software for a comprehensive nutritional assessment. Additionally, articles pertaining to food and nutrition policy within Lebanese prison law were carefully reviewed and compared to international standards and findings from other countries. The findings of this study reveal significant gaps in both the nutritional quality and quantity of various nutrients in the food provided to inmates. This study is limited to diet plans from one central prison and may not fully represent the nutritional situation across all Lebanese prisons. The findings underscore the need for reform in the nutrition policy within Lebanese prison law, advocating for a more nutritious diet that considers the quantity, quality, macronutrient and micronutrient content and food choices that reflect the needs and dietary habits of all prisoners, including migrants and refugees. This research highlights opportunities for improvement in the food provision system within Lebanese prisons. This study provides evidence for health experts and policymakers to advocate for and implement changes in nutrition policy to ensure the overall well-being of inmates. Ensuring adequate nutrition for prisoners, a marginalized population, aligns with international human rights standards and contributes to their overall well-being. Addressing the dietary needs of all prisoners, including migrants and refugees, promotes inclusivity and equity within the prison system. This research provides an original analysis of the nutritional adequacy of food in Lebanese prisons, comparing it to both national policy and international standards and highlighting the nutritional needs of a diverse prison population.

In housing disrepair cases, expert evidence plays a pivotal role in establishing the extent and impact of property defects on tenants’ health, safety and quality of life. Experts, typically surveyors or environmental health professionals, provide independent technical assessments of the condition of a property and the likely causes of disrepair. Their reports are crucial in determining liability, guiding remedial actions and informing the court or tribunal on matters outside the general knowledge of laypersons. The significance of expert involvement lies in their ability to objectively quantify damage, evaluate compliance with housing standards and correlate disrepair with consequential harm such as damp-related illnesses or structural safety risks. In cases involving claims for damages or specific performance, expert reports often form the evidential foundation for successful outcomes. Moreover, courts increasingly rely on the clarity and impartiality of expert opinions to resolve disputes efficiently, especially where allegations are contested. The Civil Procedure Rules underscore the duty of experts to the court over the instructing party, ensuring their findings are not biased. Their involvement also aids in pre-litigation resolution, as robust expert evidence can prompt early settlements and avoid unnecessary litigation. In sum, experts are instrumental in bridging the gap between technical housing issues and legal accountability, providing objective insight that supports fair and informed adjudication. Their contributions ensure that disrepair cases are resolved not only on legal principles but with an accurate understanding of conditions affecting tenants’ well-being. This article is also included in The Business & Management Collection which can be accessed at https://hstalks.com/business/.

BackgroundAcute Kidney Injury (AKI) is a common yet preventable complication among surgical patients, contributing to increased morbidity, prolonged hospital stays, and higher healthcare costs. Early detection is critical; however, the absence of a standardized nursing-led risk assessment tool for AKI limits proactive intervention in clinical practice.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and evaluate the Nursing Risk Assessment for Acute Kidney Injury tool, integrating the Fuzzy Logic Model (FLM) to enhance interpretive accuracy and improve nursing-led AKI risk detection and decision-making.MethodsA Design and Development Research (DDR) framework was employed in three phases. Phase 1 involved a needs analysis using a focus group discussion to explore the necessity of AKI assessment among surgical nurses. Phase 2 focused on tool development through expert consensus (surgeon, nephrologist, nursing academician, and experienced nurse) and evidence synthesis via a systematic literature review. In Phase 3, the Nursing Risk Assessment-AKI tool was evaluated through a quasi-experimental design at Hospital Canselor Tuanku Muhriz (HCTM), Kuala Lumpur, involving 75 surgical nurses assessing 200 patients.ResultsPost-intervention analysis indicated increased nursing confidence, with 95.7% expressing positive perception of tool use. The FLM-supported tool demonstrated a predictive accuracy of 81.3%; however, the potential for false positives or negatives remains, especially given the single-center context. Fuzzy logic stratified patients into risk groups: at risk (33.5%), borderline (20.5%), and no risk (46.0%). ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences (p < 0.05) between AKI risk and factors such as age, gender, comorbidities, clinical/laboratory parameters, surgery types, and nephrotoxic agent usage.ConclusionWhile initial findings support the usability and clinical feasibility of the NURA-AKI tool, further multicenter validation is needed. The tool is designed to complement nurse judgment, promoting early AKI detection and structured risk communication in surgical care without replacing clinical autonomy.

Technical disputes in international arbitration often involve and rely on party-appointed experts, but this practice raises concerns about partisanship, inefficiency, and high costs. Alternative approaches, such as tribunal-appointed experts and expert conferencing, have yet to fully address these challenges. In response, the Association for Innovative Practices in Arbitration (‘AIPA’), a Geneva-based group of arbitration practitioners, issued the Rules on Technical Assistance in International Arbitration (2022) (The Rules on Technical Assistance in International Arbitration are appended to this article.), which introduce the Technical Assistant, a neutral specialist who aids tribunals in understanding complex technical matters and streamlining disputed issues, without offering expert opinions or influencing decisions. This article explores the limitations of traditional expert evidence, the development of the AIPA Rules, and how the Technical Assistant model may enhance efficiency, due process, and decision-making, in complex, technically intensive disputes.

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) emphasizes the systematic and judicious use of the best available evidence in clinical decision-making aligning treatment options with individual patients’ values and circumstances. It integrates clinical expertise, patient preferences, and research evidence to optimize patient care. By adopting EBM principles, clinicians improve care quality, ensure ethical decision-making, and adapt to the evolving landscape of medical science. This dynamic paradigm advances patient outcomes while providing a compassionate and evidence-driven healthcare environment. However, challenges such as information overload, resource constraints, and variations in evidence quality necessitate continuous learning and systematic approaches. This article explores the historical evolution of EBM, its foundational principles, and the structured five-step process: Assess, Ask, Acquire, Appraise, and Apply.

Risk assessment is an important component of many areas of the law, including criminal law. Forensic psychologists and psychiatrists are sometimes called upon to provide evidence of the risk of future criminal activity through identifying and measuring risk factors with the aid of tools that use scales based on statistical or actuarial risk prediction. At present, there is an emphasis on "structured professional judgment" which combines the use of risk assessment tools with clinical judgment. However, the development of risk assessment tools by private companies using algorithms that are not released to the public raises both ethical and legal issues that are highlighted in this column.

ABSTRACTBackgroundIn 2018, the Chinese Society of Endocrinology developed the “Chinese guideline for diagnosis and treatment of hyperuricemia and gout (2019)”. Over the past 5 years, clinical and experimental research has expanded our knowledge of gout, resulting in novel diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. This update, prompted by new clinical challenges and gaps in evidence, aims to refine the 2019 guidelines.MethodsThe working group formulated clinical questions based on a nationwide questionnaire survey, and the expert panel evaluated new evidence addressing these questions from January 2019 to March 2025. The guideline development followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, adhering to internationally recognized protocols for clinical practice guideline development.ResultsThe update includes 26 recommendations addressing 10 clinical questions related to urate‐lowering therapy (ULT) for asymptomatic hyperuricemia and reproductive populations, anti‐inflammatory treatments, urine alkalinization, dietary advice, and gout diagnosis in patients without a record of hyperuricemia and gout flare predictions in patients with asymptomatic hyperuricemia and intermittent gout. It recommends febuxostat as a first‐line ULT for asymptomatic hyperuricemia and using it with caution during pregnancy and lactation. ULT should be customized according to the pathophysiologic type of hyperuricemia. Chronic gout management includes maintaining serum urate levels between 180 and 300 μmol/L and prolonged glucocorticoid tapering in combination with colchicine. Alkalinization with citrate is preferred over sodium bicarbonate for patients with urine pH < 6.0. Novel biomarkers for predicting gout flares are proposed for high‐risk populations.ConclusionsThese updated guidelines incorporate expert consensus and evidence to provide refined strategies for the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of hyperuricemia and gout.

Consumer expertise is increasingly being leveraged in health service improvement to enhance patient satisfaction and experiences of care given the disparities in consumer and clinical prioritisation of health outcomes and treatment preferences. The value of experiential expertise is slowly being discovered in legal disputes with the involvement of consumers in health complaint investigations, but consumer perspectives remain underutilised in findings of law. This article explores whether expert opinion evidence could be tendered by consumer representatives in medical litigation and whether it should be recognised to minimise perceived (or actual) injustice against patients and their carers maligned as lay people in the judicial system. This theoretical exercise concludes that experiential expertise could qualify as expert opinion evidence, and this recognition would afford greater credibility to judicial decisions in line with recognised principles of procedural fairness.

The purpose of this study is to examine and analyze law enforcement against asusila content spreaders as well as to examine and meganalyze obstacles in law enforcement against asusila content spreaders.This study uses empirical juristic research methods.The jurisdictions approach is used to analyze the legislative regulations relating to the dissemination of the content of the asusila.Empirical approaches are used to analyze empirical data obtained from the study of documents and interviews with key informants.As for the results of this study, which is enforcement against perpetrators of the spread of content asusila involves several steps starting from the investigation, Investigation, until the trial.This process involves various institutions, including police, The prosecution, and the court.Somerules that are the legal basis that can be applied to the perpetrators of the distribution of pornographic content among others: kuhp, The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases . pornography law, the obstacles in law enforcement the content porno is the lack of data to restore the availability of video or photographs that contain a pornography, when unexpected perpetrators have remove the data, so as to the evidence and investigators must bring attendant / investigators suspected cell phone video as well as a photograph in which is intended to labs digital forensic police in makassar, and not a ite in maluku, to ask the expert testimony and evidence to support should come from outside the maluku ite notabenenya memelukan large enough money.

The increasing reliance on forensic expertise in criminal proceedings is attributed to the inherent characteristics of scientific evidence, such as neutrality, objectivity and universality, which provide judges with greater certainty in their decisions. However, Act XXIX of 2016 restricts the role of forensic experts, emphasising that judges must assess cases independently, rather than simply adopting the conclusions of experts. This paper examines the delicate balance between the roles of judges and experts, highlighting the importance of distinguishing between issues of fact and law, and addressing concerns that judges may lose their discretion when faced complex technical issues. The evolving nature of expertise raises questions about its regulation and the implications for judicial decision-making. The relationship between judges and experts in legal proceedings is complex, as experts should provide objective assessments that complement but do not replace judges’ authority. Expert opinions, which combine scientific and subjective elements, can significantly influence judicial decisions, especially in bankruptcy cases. This study uses logistic regression modelling to show how judges tend to favour expert opinions over raw financial data, reflecting a reliance on qualitative factors in their decisions. Two models are proposed to analyze the influence of expert opinions on judicial decisions, with the second model incorporating the expert's opinion leading to a higher predictive power regarding the judge's decisions. The findings suggest that judges may place more trust in expert opinions than in raw financial data, indicating a preference for qualitative assessments over quantitative indicators. The paper concludes by emphasizing the need for a clear distinction between the roles of the expert and the judge.

Recent research examines how the transformational experience of the COVID-19 pandemic reshapes trust in science, expertise and public institutions in its aftermath. This article extends this scholarship by asking how the transformation of societal norms about expertise induced by the pandemic experience shapes social movements that contest state expertise. Using interview data with participants from an ongoing environmental health mobilization in Rouyn-Noranda (Quebec, Canada), this article highlights how participants negotiate their precarious status as challengers of expertise in a post-COVID world. First, I examine the direct and indirect evidence of politicized expertise that participants draw on to motivate their distrust. Second, I show how participants negotiate the boundary between claims of COVID-related groups labeled as conspiracist and their own. Overall, this article contributes to better understanding how mobilized citizens navigate changing norms around trust in science.

Patient satisfaction has become a critical metric in healthcare delivery, as it reflects the quality of care and alignment with patient needs. In physiotherapy, patient opinions are integral to evidence-based practice along with clinical expertise and research evidence. This study aimed to assess the satisfaction levels of patients receiving physiotherapy services in general hospitals across Tripoli. A cross-sectional study was conducted involving 70 participants (30 males, 40 females) aged 19–65 years, recruited from physiotherapy units in four hospitals in Tripoli. A physical therapy satisfaction questionnaire was used to evaluate patient satisfaction across various dimensions of service quality. Statistical analysis was performed to identify significant differences in the satisfaction levels. of the participants, 42.9% were male, and 57.1% were female. The findings revealed statistically significant differences in most satisfaction-related items, with p-values less than 0.05, except for 18 items for which differences were not statistically significant (p &gt; 0.05). Overall, most patients expressed high satisfaction with physiotherapy services, including the quality of care provided by therapists, the efficiency of services, and the effectiveness of treatment sessions. This study demonstrates that patients receiving physiotherapy services in public hospitals in Tripoli are generally satisfied with the care they receive. These results underscore the competence of public physiotherapy services and their ability to meet patient expectations regarding various aspects of care delivery. This study provides evidence to support the effectiveness and quality of public healthcare facilities in Tripoli.

The article focuses on the peculiarities of implementation of amicus curiae practice in Ukrainian court proceedings, i.e. external assistance in resolving complex issues which go beyond the interests of the parties to a particular court case. The author points out that in the national context, the permissible forms of such assistance relate to the resolution of issues of law. The article focuses on the concept and current manifestations of amicus curiae practice in the legal systems where it is particularly widespread, and also highlights the trend towards the expansion of this practice. The author argues that in Ukrainian legal proceedings, assistance of legal experts, institutions and groups in resolving complex legal issues is based on the principle of jura novit curia, which embodies the irrefutable presumption of the court’s knowledge of the law. The author argues that, as a result of this principle, any statements, including those publicly made or directly addressed to the court, from professionals, professional communities and organisations containing arguments on the resolution of legal issues cannot be perceived as an unauthorised influence on the court and do not pose a threat to the independence of the court or impartiality in the administration of justice. At the same time, the author draws attention to the fact that ethical restrictions must be observed: opinions should not concern how the case before the court should be finally resolved, and the opinion should not contain criticism of valid court decisions that goes beyond criticism of the opinions in matters of law. The article outlines the main formats in which the Supreme Court engages the assistance of legal experts: individual opinions; meetings of working groups of the Scientific Advisory Council of the Supreme Court. The author points out the ways of further development of group formats of amici curiae work and justifies the use of techniques for organising this work in court proceedings which are typical for obtaining legal expert evidence in international arbitration. The article draws a general conclusion that it is permissible to expand the practice of amicus curiae, involve professional legal communities in the development and debates around pending legal matters and that this is in the interests of the administration of justice, legal practitioners and other professional communities and society as a whole.

Several discussions indicate that expert opinion is crucial to judicial processes, as it enables courts to comprehend technical and specialized topics. The Indian Evidence Act of 1872 controls expert opinion admissibility and its probative value in Indian courts. Expert evidence assists the courts in forensic science cases, medical evidence cases, handwriting identification cases, and computer forensics cases. Yet, the reliability and objectivity of specialist opinions have come under scrutiny due to the likelihood of bias, variability in methodology, and judicial suspicion. This paper critically evaluates the legal framework regarding expert opinions under the Act on its admissibility, weight, judicial interpretation, and connected case laws. It also discusses the problems and reliability issues relating to expert evidence in India, as well as comparative jurisdiction analysis and reform proposals. This article discusses such concerns within the legislative context and court rulings, as well as an in-depth analysis regarding the use of forensic evidence, medical evidence, and the changing face of expert testimony in the digital age As the Indian law relies upon the evidence to prove facts and render justice.

Abstract The token economy is rapidly advancing and if fully realized will change the financial sector significantly. This paper will examine the development, application and use of tokens, and blockchain technology along with their impact to the rules of evidence in international commercial arbitration. The technology is formidable and will require new skills. It calls on arbitration institutions, as a starting point, to develop guidance notes for the technical application of blockchain and tokens used in evidence. This paper highlights how a recent addition to the legal framework is the Token Service Agreement, which incorporates an arbitration clause and the use of blockchain. This, along with the many other agreements that have recently been developed, for instance, in cybersecurity and data, will all be important components to the evidence that an arbitral tribunal will need to consider. More specifically, expert evidence is and will become crucial to being able to trace the actual dispute of the token (its supporting technology) and blockchain. The paper concludes calling for further research to be undertaken about how blockchain and tokens will need to be considered as evidence in international commercial arbitration.

The calligraphic meta-expert evidence arises from the logical, epistemic, and evaluative study performed on ex ante expert evidence, an activity known as meta-expertise. It helps the sentencing judge understand a technique or applied science that fails to overcome a minimum scrutiny given the manufacturing anomalies evident in the expert report examined. However, the national legislator has not formally regulated it, even though it contains aspects of utmost relevance to the judicial system.