12 September 2024 Keith Rix 313 Case Updates Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis byKeith Rix Commentary The detail of this judgment will mainly be of interest to paediatricians, radiologists and clinical pharmacologists as it is another case in which there has been an issue as to the effects of proton pump inhibitors on bone growth. Its particular value is in its review of the case law from which is derived the requirement that experts address unknown causes in a case of possible non-accidental injury. There are some learning points of more general application arising out of the criticisms of the experts and particularly relevant to all single joint experts, not just in jointly appointed experts in the Family Court. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags Non-accidental injury08. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert12. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements14. Giving Oral Evidence15. Criticism and ComplaintsKnown unknownsMetaphyseal corner fracturesProtein pump inhibitors Related articles Is it within the remit of an expert to decide which witness of fact they believe or disbelieve? When the joint statement is no more than really two statements, one from each expert. The dangers of a considerable burden of expert work Preliminary (pre-report) experts’ meetings A Day in the Life of a Medicolegal Expert Witness Switch article Ten tips for acting as a Single Joint Expert Previous Article NHS Resolution announces new Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.