72 Harley Street, London W1G 7HG, UK
I was intrigued by Mr Pringle's excellent article (September 2003, JRSM1). I published on the same subject in 20012 and nothing has changed in the past two years. The defects in the arrangements for expert discussion will continue until changes are made in the current system of medical litigation. I will emphasize three matters.
The Civil Procedure Rules make it clear that the discussion must be between like disciplines. Experts should make this clear to the judge issuing the order, and if necessary refuse to comply.
The second matter concerns whether or not one or both experts have conducted a recent examination and report. If not, discussion cannot take place and the judge managing the case must be so informed.
Thirdly, I think the judge, having read the reports, should set the agenda questions for the experts uninfluenced by instructing solicitors, but allowing the experts to raise any other matters.
REFERENCES
-year
experience. Medical Litigation2001; Dec: 10This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
D. Marjot Legal considerations of clinical guidelines J R Soc Med, February 1, 2004; 97(2): 97 - 97. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||