Expert witnesses: Neuroradiologists' perspectives

Nara P. Pereira, Jonathan S. Lewin, Kelly P. Yousem, David Mark Yousem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Results: The survey found that 1,301 of 4,357 answered at least one survey question. Five hundred twenty seven of 1194 (44.1%) of respondents had experience as expert witnesses. Most offer to testify on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant physicians (324 of 465; 69.7%). Some do not testify/review cases on behalf of a plaintiff because they do not think that physicians should testify against other physicians, even if negligence is a factor (40 of 198; 20.2%). This reason was the most common for not agreeing to be an expert witness for a plaintiff, for all age groups. Of those expressing an opinion, 312 of 874 (35.7%) of neuroradiologists feel negatively about expert witnesses, whereas 434 of 874 (49.6%) say they serve a purpose, and 105 of 874 (12.0%) feel they should be commended for their work on behalf of the justice system.

Methods: A survey was distributed to the 4,357 e-mail addresses of the members of the American Society of Neuroradiology with questions about expert witnesses.

Purpose: Physician malpractice expert witnesses may testify on behalf of physicians or patients. The goal of the study was to assess the experience of neuroradiologists as expert witnesses and their attitudes about such testimony.

Conclusions: Of neuroradiologists answering the survey, nearly half have served as expert witnesses, and most feel comfortable testifying for both plaintiffs and defendants. Substantive negative perceptions (35.7%) of expert witnesses were found.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)984-988
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Volume11
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014

Fingerprint

Expert Testimony
Physicians
Malpractice
Social Justice
Postal Service
Age Groups
Surveys and Questionnaires

Keywords

  • expert witness
  • litigation
  • malpractice
  • Medicolegal
  • neuroradiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Expert witnesses : Neuroradiologists' perspectives. / Pereira, Nara P.; Lewin, Jonathan S.; Yousem, Kelly P.; Yousem, David Mark.

In: Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 11, No. 10, 01.10.2014, p. 984-988.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Pereira, Nara P. ; Lewin, Jonathan S. ; Yousem, Kelly P. ; Yousem, David Mark. / Expert witnesses : Neuroradiologists' perspectives. In: Journal of the American College of Radiology. 2014 ; Vol. 11, No. 10. pp. 984-988.
@article{9a9744a7a80042098eaf64b49e7d19c8,
title = "Expert witnesses: Neuroradiologists' perspectives",
abstract = "Results: The survey found that 1,301 of 4,357 answered at least one survey question. Five hundred twenty seven of 1194 (44.1{\%}) of respondents had experience as expert witnesses. Most offer to testify on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant physicians (324 of 465; 69.7{\%}). Some do not testify/review cases on behalf of a plaintiff because they do not think that physicians should testify against other physicians, even if negligence is a factor (40 of 198; 20.2{\%}). This reason was the most common for not agreeing to be an expert witness for a plaintiff, for all age groups. Of those expressing an opinion, 312 of 874 (35.7{\%}) of neuroradiologists feel negatively about expert witnesses, whereas 434 of 874 (49.6{\%}) say they serve a purpose, and 105 of 874 (12.0{\%}) feel they should be commended for their work on behalf of the justice system.Methods: A survey was distributed to the 4,357 e-mail addresses of the members of the American Society of Neuroradiology with questions about expert witnesses.Purpose: Physician malpractice expert witnesses may testify on behalf of physicians or patients. The goal of the study was to assess the experience of neuroradiologists as expert witnesses and their attitudes about such testimony.Conclusions: Of neuroradiologists answering the survey, nearly half have served as expert witnesses, and most feel comfortable testifying for both plaintiffs and defendants. Substantive negative perceptions (35.7{\%}) of expert witnesses were found.",
keywords = "expert witness, litigation, malpractice, Medicolegal, neuroradiology",
author = "Pereira, {Nara P.} and Lewin, {Jonathan S.} and Yousem, {Kelly P.} and Yousem, {David Mark}",
year = "2014",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jacr.2014.04.009",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "984--988",
journal = "Journal of the American College of Radiology",
issn = "1558-349X",
publisher = "Elsevier BV",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Expert witnesses

T2 - Neuroradiologists' perspectives

AU - Pereira, Nara P.

AU - Lewin, Jonathan S.

AU - Yousem, Kelly P.

AU - Yousem, David Mark

PY - 2014/10/1

Y1 - 2014/10/1

N2 - Results: The survey found that 1,301 of 4,357 answered at least one survey question. Five hundred twenty seven of 1194 (44.1%) of respondents had experience as expert witnesses. Most offer to testify on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant physicians (324 of 465; 69.7%). Some do not testify/review cases on behalf of a plaintiff because they do not think that physicians should testify against other physicians, even if negligence is a factor (40 of 198; 20.2%). This reason was the most common for not agreeing to be an expert witness for a plaintiff, for all age groups. Of those expressing an opinion, 312 of 874 (35.7%) of neuroradiologists feel negatively about expert witnesses, whereas 434 of 874 (49.6%) say they serve a purpose, and 105 of 874 (12.0%) feel they should be commended for their work on behalf of the justice system.Methods: A survey was distributed to the 4,357 e-mail addresses of the members of the American Society of Neuroradiology with questions about expert witnesses.Purpose: Physician malpractice expert witnesses may testify on behalf of physicians or patients. The goal of the study was to assess the experience of neuroradiologists as expert witnesses and their attitudes about such testimony.Conclusions: Of neuroradiologists answering the survey, nearly half have served as expert witnesses, and most feel comfortable testifying for both plaintiffs and defendants. Substantive negative perceptions (35.7%) of expert witnesses were found.

AB - Results: The survey found that 1,301 of 4,357 answered at least one survey question. Five hundred twenty seven of 1194 (44.1%) of respondents had experience as expert witnesses. Most offer to testify on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant physicians (324 of 465; 69.7%). Some do not testify/review cases on behalf of a plaintiff because they do not think that physicians should testify against other physicians, even if negligence is a factor (40 of 198; 20.2%). This reason was the most common for not agreeing to be an expert witness for a plaintiff, for all age groups. Of those expressing an opinion, 312 of 874 (35.7%) of neuroradiologists feel negatively about expert witnesses, whereas 434 of 874 (49.6%) say they serve a purpose, and 105 of 874 (12.0%) feel they should be commended for their work on behalf of the justice system.Methods: A survey was distributed to the 4,357 e-mail addresses of the members of the American Society of Neuroradiology with questions about expert witnesses.Purpose: Physician malpractice expert witnesses may testify on behalf of physicians or patients. The goal of the study was to assess the experience of neuroradiologists as expert witnesses and their attitudes about such testimony.Conclusions: Of neuroradiologists answering the survey, nearly half have served as expert witnesses, and most feel comfortable testifying for both plaintiffs and defendants. Substantive negative perceptions (35.7%) of expert witnesses were found.

KW - expert witness

KW - litigation

KW - malpractice

KW - Medicolegal

KW - neuroradiology

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84928097324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84928097324&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.04.009

DO - 10.1016/j.jacr.2014.04.009

M3 - Article

C2 - 25091152

AN - SCOPUS:84928097324

VL - 11

SP - 984

EP - 988

JO - Journal of the American College of Radiology

JF - Journal of the American College of Radiology

SN - 1558-349X

IS - 10

ER -