So I ask — how is it possible that a psychologist — unqualified to
proffer expert opinion evidence in brain injury cases — was able to do so over and over and over for several years without challenge to his qualifications?
Not exact matches
In so doing they throw the dice and gamble the
expert won't
proffer highly biased (pro-insurer)
opinion evidence just as as she / he was found to have done by previous judges in previous cases.
If this is a criterion for understanding «basic procedures» — that might explain why the ligation landscape is littered with so many cases in which unqualified
experts were able to
proffer unchallenged, unqualified «
expert»
opinion evidence.
If participant
experts or non-party
experts proffer opinion evidence extending beyond these limits, they must comply with rule 53.03 for that portion of their
evidence, Simmons said.
Of course the next obvious question is why didn't the plaintiff lawyers call the regulatory College (CPO) to confirm that this «opposing
expert» was in fact properly qualified to
proffer neuropsychological
opinion evidence for the defence in brain injury cases?
There is lots of discourse floating around about the gatekeeping responsibilities of triers of fact and the need to ensure that only properly qualified
experts are permitted to
proffer opinion evidence.
However, if a participant
expert proffers opinion evidence extending beyond those limits, he or she must comply with r. 53.03 with respect to the portion of the
opinion extending beyond those limits.
However, where disclosure problems do exist, including the disclosure of the
proffered opinion of a participant
expert only on the eve of trial, the trial judge has the discretion to exclude the last - minute
opinion evidence.
For example, I'd of thought it would be painfully obvious that a psychological «
expert»
proffering opinion evidence in a chronic pain case who concedes under cross-examination to «a lack of training and competency in the area of chronic pain» ought to be confronted with his concession (chronicled in the form of adverse judicial comment) his next time out (only weeks later in another chronic pain case).