Do Not Let Defendants Exclude Your Medical Experts»
Opinions on Causation, Consumer Attorneys of California's Forum Magazine, September 2004
Dr. Farine, a defence expert tried to base his expert
opinion on causation on some of the expert findings from the first trial.
These opinions on the causation issue were based on various facts, including Mrs. Cahoon's descriptions of her injuries and the dynamics of the collision.
Not exact matches
In conclusion, there seems to emerge from the
Opinion of the AG Saugmandsgaard ØE a narrower interpretation of the State resources criterion, based
on the commitment of public resources and
causation / remoteness.
Torts — Negligence — Medical malpractice —
Causation — Trial judge finding respondent obstetrician liable for applicant infant's injuries — Whether, under principles described in Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311, it is open for a trier of fact to find causation by drawing an inference based on all the evidence led at trial, notwithstanding the fact that the defence has led some evidence to the contrary — Whether, in an informed consent case, the causation issue is decided in accordance with the majority or the minority opinions of the House of Lords in Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1
Causation — Trial judge finding respondent obstetrician liable for applicant infant's injuries — Whether, under principles described in Snell v. Farrell, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 311, it is open for a trier of fact to find
causation by drawing an inference based on all the evidence led at trial, notwithstanding the fact that the defence has led some evidence to the contrary — Whether, in an informed consent case, the causation issue is decided in accordance with the majority or the minority opinions of the House of Lords in Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1
causation by drawing an inference based
on all the evidence led at trial, notwithstanding the fact that the defence has led some evidence to the contrary — Whether, in an informed consent case, the
causation issue is decided in accordance with the majority or the minority opinions of the House of Lords in Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1
causation issue is decided in accordance with the majority or the minority
opinions of the House of Lords in Chester v Afshar, [2005] 1 A.C. 134.
These reports consist of expert witnesses offering their professional
opinions on a variety of issues, including
causation, severity of injuries, diagnosis, and permanence of injuries.
The plaintiff's expert's evidence was criticized because: 1) he didn't review the entire file, just what the plaintiff provided to him; 2) his
opinion was formed with the benefit of hindsight; 3) he gave evidence as to
causation of the plaintiff's loss, based
on what the motions judge might have done had H proceeded differently, which is impermissible.
The article covers how a judge in the U.S. District Court in Connecticut excluded the plaintiff's medical
causation expert
on Daubert grounds after finding insufficient evidence of the plaintiff's exposure to the drug, which was necessary to support the expert's
opinion on specific
causation.
You should not make any formal statements about fault,
causation, or your
opinion on what happened.
To be useful an
opinion must be more than a conclusory assertion
on causation.
However, his
opinion with respect to
causation is based to a large extent
on incorrect and incomplete information.
As above, Dr. Winston's
opinion is broadly consistent with this at least
on the initial
causation issue (but he is very skeptical about any ongoing impairment).
For example, Feldman analyzed the quality of Supreme Court merits briefs using a composite of features such as passivity, wordiness, sentence length, and tone.63 He found that brief readability was positively associated with the percentage of brief language adopted in the
opinion and that the association was highly significant.64 Similarly, Collins et al. analyzed the «cognitive clarity» and plain language of Supreme Court amicus briefs.65 They measured cognitive clarity using the dictionary - based Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count program (LIWC), which relied
on an index of categories that relate to cognitive clarity such as «
causation, insight, discrepancy, inhibition, tentativeness, certainty, exclusiveness, inclusiveness, negations, and the percentage of words containing six or more letters.»
Upon learning that Freeman intended to disclose an additional or new medical expert witness to offer
opinions on the issue of
causation, Dr. Crays» lawyers moved to adopt the rulings from the earlier case and bar any testimony of plaintiff's newly disclosed expert
opinion pursuant to Illinois Supreme Court Rule 219 (e).
If the treating physician has an expert report submitted
on their behalf, the treating physician may testify as a retained expert about matters that go beyond treatment and diagnosis, such as
opinions related to
causation.
The Court decided the trial judge had carefully weighed the evidence as a whole, including the statistical evidence, the evidence specific to the Plaintiff, and the three expert
opinions, all of which involved some speculation and held that she made no palpable and overriding error in finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish
causation on a balance of probabilities:
In all investigations of fatal / serious road traffic collisions where there is no exact data or information as to the collision circumstances for example CCTV of the movement of the vehicles, it always comes down to the
opinion of the collision investigator
on consideration of all of the available evidence as to the
causation of the material road traffic collision.