Plaintiff Experts Research Articles

Expert testimony in recovered memory trials: Effects on mock jurors' opinions, deliberations and verdicts

AbstractThe current study examined the impact of adversarial expert testimony on deliberations and verdicts in a mock trial involving recovered memories of child sexual abuse. Participants (N = 238) were randomly assigned to one of the six conditions in a 2 (Defense Expert: absent or present) × 3 (Plaintiff Expert: absent, general or specific/therapist) factorial design. After reading the mock trial transcript, participants completed a questionnaire and deliberated to reach a jury verdict. The defense expert's statements effectively reduced the number of pro‐plaintiff verdicts and the plaintiff's credibility. These effects were not mitigated by the plaintiff experts, suggesting that the plaintiff experts may only confirm jurors' prior pro‐repression beliefs. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Medicolegal rounds: Medicolegal issues and alleged breaches of standards of medical care in a patient motor vehicle accident allegedly related to chronic opioid analgesic therapy

The objective of this medicolegal case report is to present the details of the case of a chronic pain patient (CPP) who was placed on chronic opioid analgesic therapy (COAT) and was involved in a motor vehicle accident, alleged in litigation to be related to COAT. COAT standards are in a process of evolution, and this process is influenced by recent literature developments. We aim to present both the plaintiffs and defendant's expert witnesses' opinions on whether the defendant physician fell below the "standard" in allowing the CPP to drive. Both the methadone and the driving literature are utilized to explain the defendant's and plaintiffs experts' opinions and the differences between them. Based on these opinions, we have attempted to develop some recommendations on how pain physicians should approach the problem of deciding whether patients should be allowed to drive when on COAT.

Plaintiff and Defense Expert Witnesses in the Sexual Abuse Case

Summary Barbara Jo Levy presents strategies and techniques for countering the “false memory” defense through the effective use of plaintiff's expert witnesses. She argues that expert witnesses should assist in preliminary case evaluation, education of the judge and jury, and in critical evaluation of defense expert testimony. Plaintiff's experts are valuable allies in maintaining the focus of the case on whether or not sexual abuse occurred in the case at hand, rather than allowing the analysis of the facts to become mired in debates over memory science. She underlines the key distinction between the role of the treating therapist and the expert witness, gives important criteria in choosing an expert witness, and reveals three key objectives of successful cross-examination. Appendices provide questions for the direct and rebuttal examination of plaintiff's expert witness, as well as actual deposition testimony and subsequent cross-examination of a defense witness to illustrate these strategies in action.

Science in the Supreme Court: round two.

Since the United States Supreme Court's 1993 decision in the Daubert case, federal judges have been looking more carefully at the scientific basis of the expert testimony presented in their courtrooms. Medical-device litigation, especially that over the alleged harm caused by breast implants, has been at the center of this rethinking of the role of the court in assessing scientific evidence. Cases that were about to settle for a total of more than $4 billion are now being seen as potentially groundless. One judge in Oregon dismissed a group of breast-implant cases. Finding there was no scientific basis for the plaintiff's claims. Another court, overseeing a large group of cases, has appointed an independent panel of experts to determine if the plaintiff's experts will be allowed to testify. As in the Oregon breast-implant cases, the exclusion of a plaintiff's expert witness often means the court must also dismiss the plaintiff's case. Plaintiffs have appealed these decisions, arguing that since the trial court's exclusion of their expert's testimony ends their case, the appeals courts should strictly review the correctness of the trial court's decision. In GE vs. Joiner, decided December 1997, the United States Supreme Court established the proper standard for appellate review of decisions by trial courts to exclude evidence.

Soil Science Contribution to an Airplane Crash Investigation, Ruidoso, New Mexico

Abstract Investigation of a plane crash near Ruidoso, New Mexico revealed foreign biological material and soil in the fuel system of the engine. In-flight accumulation of the soil was claimed by the plaintiffs as one cause for the crash. EDX X-ray maps and spectra were taken by the plaintiff's experts and showed patterns consistent with silicates. The defense hypothesis was that the soil accumulated after the crash while the debris was in a storage yard and exposed to the elements for several months. Many of the parts were covered in muddy water (mud puddles) before the plaintiffs investigated the parts for soil accumulation. The soil composition on the parts was found to be similar to that in the storage yard. Further, the plane was exposed to an intense fire after the crash, and if the soil had been subjected to such temperatures it would have oxidized to a red color. Soil from the storage yard, the crash site, and from an area in Montana where the plane landed on an unpaved runway was exposed to heat up to 1,000°C in the laboratory and the soil turned red. Soil from the fuel component was not red, although a small piece adhering to the outside of the wreckage was red suggesting exposure to the post-crash fire. It was concluded that the engine parts were contaminated with soil after the crash, and that pre-crash accumulation of soil, as a supplement or alternative to biological contamination, was not a viable explanation.