RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 2003;96:573-574
doi:10.1258/jrsm.96.11.573-c
© 2003 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harris, N H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
J R Soc Med 2003;96:573-574
© 2003 The Royal Society of Medicine

Medicolegal conferencing

N H Harris

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

  1. Pringle RG. An audit of medicolegal conferencing. J R Soc Med 2003;96:454 -7[Abstract/Free Full Text]

  2. Harris NH. Discussion between experts—a 21/2-year experience. Medical Litigation2001; Dec: 10


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
JRSMHome page
D. Marjot
Legal considerations of clinical guidelines
J R Soc Med, February 1, 2004; 97(2): 97 - 97.
[Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Harris, N H
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Get Through Series