But there is no precedent for a non-party
appeal by an expert witness — and Egilman does not appear to be so affected by Peterson's ruling that he has standing to appeal it.
Not exact matches
The
appeal division panel that awarded costs to DeMerchant and Sukonick found that the proceedings were not unwarranted at the beginning, but they became so after the law society failed to provide evidence to contradict testimony
by an
expert witness that held the two were following standard practice in the corporate bar.
[6] The Westerhof
appeal raises the question of whether rule 53.03 applies only to
experts described in rule 4.1.01 and Form 53 —
experts «engaged
by or on behalf of a party to provide [opinion] evidence in relation to a proceeding» (referred to in these reasons as «litigation
experts»)-- or whether it applies more broadly to all
witnesses with special expertise who give opinion evidence.
The issue in the case on
appeal was whether the plaintiff's medical negligence claim against Dr. Sweet, an
expert witness, retained
by plaintiff's adversary in the pending litigation, owed a legal duty to the plaintiff.
The Arizona Court of
Appeals did accept jurisdiction, however, to clarify that some of the procedures followed
by the court, in this case, were contrary to the statutes in place for the purpose of preventing any court in the future from delegating judicial decisions to
expert witnesses or allowing interim transfers of custody without a hearing.
Although some respondents may question the need for a regulatory body to put «
expert»
witnesses in front of a panel that may itself consist of professional members with «
expert» knowledge, many cases establish
expert witnesses as necessary for a proper evidentiary record, even though the entire panel may possess the same knowledge, e.g., to allow expertise to be tested
by cross-examination, and to permit a review or
appeal body to carry out its function.
The
appeals court said he misled jurors
by saying his
expert witnesses were unpaid and that the opposing
experts gave «bought testimony.»
It was established
by the Court of
Appeal in Meadow, that medical
expert witnesses are accountable to the GMC for their conduct as
experts.
In Stewart v. Humber River Regional Hospital [vi], the Court of
Appeal for Ontario disqualified a law firm that had learned privileged information from the opposing party in litigation as a result of retaining an
expert witness previously retained
by the other side.
Though the jury sided with the doctor, the federal
appeals court ordered a new trial, saying the judge erred
by excluding testimony from
expert witnesses.
The trial court and later the Ohio Court of
Appeals based their decisions in part on testimony
by an
expert witness for the broker who said it was industry practice to deduct the expenses from the departing sales associate's share of compensation.