Extradition and suicide risk Extradition and suicide risk

Extradition and suicide risk

This case is important for two reasons. It illustrates that having “no control over actions” and “not making a rational...
Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

Transparency and Open Justice Board Key Objectives

The Transparency and Open Justice Board has published its final Key Objectives and its response to its Public Engagement on the proposed Key...
A fundamentally flawed report A fundamentally flawed report

A fundamentally flawed report

The parties unanimously agreed that the report of a Court appointed expert was fundamentally flawed, could not be relied upon, and a new psychologist...
Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and... Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

Referral of Release Decisions Consultation: proposed amendments to CPR Part 77 and...

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee ('Committee') is consulting on proposed amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules Part 77 and the Practice...
Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Expert evidence and the materiality of a risk

Although this is an orthopaedic case and in which given its preliminary nature the expert evidence was not tested, it is helpful for experts in...
Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025 Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025

In the 14th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, Simon and EWI's Marketing and Events Manger, Heather George, reflect on their highlights from...
Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

Podcast Episode 13: Long-Standing Policy Issues

In the 13th episode of the Expert Matters Podcast, we look at five long-standing policy issues that have had significant developments recently: (1)...

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.

Judicial analysis of written expert healthcare evidence
Keith Rix 725

Judicial analysis of written expert healthcare evidence

byKeith Rix

 

Commentary

This is an important judgment for experts who prepare personal injury reports in the Republic of Ireland but also for all experts, in all of the jurisdictions in the British Isles, for its description of the judicial analysis of expert evidence. It deals with procedure in Ireland for the instruction of specialist medical experts through plaintiffs’ general practitioners.   

The judgment includes an extract from McGrath’s Evidence (3rd edn, 2020) about how the weight of expert evidence is tested by the court. Most of the factors enumerated can be used to form a useful framework for the case-based discussion of an expert report in peer review. 

The judgment includes some implicit criticism of two of the experts but, as the judge acknowledged, his evaluation of the medical evidence had been complicated in the absence of oral evidence. 

Learning points:

A healthcare expert approached by a solicitor acting for a plaintiff in personal injury litigation in Ireland ought not accept instructions without first asking if the plaintiff’s general practitioner has either refused to refer the plaintiff to a healthcare specialist or has failed within 21 days to respond to a request to do so. In the event that this is not so, it is likely that the solicitor will explain why a direct referral is being made to the expert.

It is appropriate for a healthcare expert to adopt an attitude of professional scepticism in their assessment of the subject of their report.

A bald assertion that preexisting problems were aggravated by approximately x% is not enough. Such an opinion calls for an analysis of the evidence upon which it is based.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login

Share

Print
Comments are only visible to subscribers.