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...
Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings

Procedure for Determining Mental Capacity in Civil Proceedings

A Civil Justice Council working group has published a report setting out recommendations for the development of a procedure for determing mental...
When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert. When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert.

When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert.

The 'joint statement' prepared by two blockchain experts was really two statements, one from each expert. Fabrizio D'Aloia v Persons...
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...
A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness

Sue Lightman is a Professor of Ophthalmology and Consultant Ophthalmologist who has been undertaking medicolegal Expert Witness work for over 20...
Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

Thomas Murray Joins EWI as a Corporate Partner

We are pleased to welcome a new Corporate Partner
Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Celebrating Success at the Sir Michael Davies Lecture

Successful Certification candidates receive their certificate from Lord Hodge.
Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Podcast Episode 5: Range of Opinion

Range of Opinion is the focus of the 5th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast. We catch up with Colin Holburn, Chair of the EWI Membership Committee,...
A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

A Day in the Life of a Water Quality Expert

Tim White is a chartered chemist who uses his expertise to assess chemical risk from exposure to water. He has been an Expert Witness for over 40...
Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Podcast Episode 4: Expert Fees

Simon and Sean discuss expert fees and catch up with Dominic Woodhouse from Partners in Costs to talk about cost management and budgeting in civil...
A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

A Day in the Life of a Fitted Kitchen and Bathroom Expert

Jerry Ponder uses his 40+ years of experience in fitted interiors to provide expert evidence on the design, product quality, installation and project...

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.

Hitting all three most common compliance errors in expert reports
Sean Mosby 500

Hitting all three most common compliance errors in expert reports

bySean Mosby

 

Summary

The medico-legal expert in this personal injury claim was urged by the judge to seek further training after he made all of the three most common compliance errors which the EWI sees in expert reports: not including details of instructions, not dealing with the range of opinion, and not giving details of the literature or other material relied upon.

Learning points

  • Make sure that in your report you:

    • Include a statement setting out the substance of all facts and instructions which are material to the opinions expressed in the report or upon which those opinions are based,

    • Where there is a range of opinion on matters dealt with in the report, summarise the range of opinions and give reasons for your own opinion, and

    • Give details of any literature or other material which you have relied on in making the report.

  • These three fundamental mistakes, all of which were made by the expert in this case, are the most common failures in compliance which the EWI sees in expert reports.  

  • Read the statement of truth and declaration carefully before you sign it and make sure that your report complies. A report checklist, such as this one, is a good way to ensure your report is compliant.

  • Make sure you obtain appropriate training from the EWI, or another provider we recognise, in report writing and meeting your duties under the relevant procedural rules, practice directions and guidance.

The Case

The claimant brought an action for damages against the Ministry of Justice (‘MoJ’) for personal injuries he allegedly suffered after a fall from the bunk bed in his prison cell. The MoJ admitted liability subject to medical causation. In order to deal with causation and whether the claim was fundamentally dishonest, the judge heard from the claimant and a medicolegal expert, Mr John Dabis a consultant orthopaedic surgeon.

The expert evidence of Mr Dabis

The claimant relied on a report from Mr Dabis based on an examination that took place 3 years after the incident. Mr Dabis concluded that the claimant suffered injuries to the shoulder, lower back and ankle that would have restricted his activities for two weeks following and incident and would return to pre-accident status four months after the initiation of treatment. Mr Dabis’s report included a signed declaration that he was aware of the requirements of CPR Part 35 and practice direction 35.

In responding to Part 35 questions, Mr Dabis appeared to contradict the opinion set out in this report on the period in which the injuries would affect the claimant.

Under cross-examination, Mr Dabis accepted that the only evidence of the incident came from the claimant himself and that there was no evidence of any injury to the claimant ‘s shoulder or lower back, or contemporaneous complaint to medical staff, other than the claimant’s subsequent self-reporting. He had not mentioned in this report that there had not been any immediate complaint about pain to the shoulder and lower back and he did not provide any explanation in his report as to the reason for the delay in any reporting.

Mr Dabis told the court that there was literature which supported his opinion on delayed presentation of injuries of this type and that there was a range of opinion as to the impact of the type of injuries suffered by the claimant.

Judgment on the expert evidence

The judge noted that Mr Dabis had failed to comply with the requirements of CPR Part 35 and practice direction 35 because he had failed to:

  • Provide a copy of his instructions (CPR 35.10(3)),

  • Provide details of the range of opinion (35PD.3.2(6)), and

  • Provide details of any literature relied upon (35PD.3.2(2)).

The judge stated that:

“These are serious failings and it was clear from Mr Dabis’ evidence that he did not have an understanding of the requirements of Part 35, despite signing a declaration on 7 May 2021 that he was aware of the requirements of part 35 and practice direction 35… it is not sufficient for an expert giving an opinion upon which a court may rely, to simply state what his/her opinion is without justification for that opinion beyond that it is the expert’s opinion that ‘…’ on the balance of probabilities.”

She concluded “that his was a very weak report which failed to comply with the requirements of an expert report” noting that “I would urge Mr Dabis to undertake some further training in expert medico-legal report writing to ensure that he fully understands the obligations of part 35 and his duties to the court.”

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.