However, as seen in our hypothetical, sometimes the treating doctor’s testimony improperly wanders into the expert arena. 702 to provide their expert opinion helping the judge and jury understand the science behind what caused the injury. Additionally, other physicians are hauled into court under R. I.e., a treating doctor is considered a lay witness limited by R. The treating/diagnosing physician is hauled into court to attest to the relevant facts they observed and are supposed to do so without providing scientific or technical knowledge. In cases involving child abuse usually both are necessary. To help the trier of fact determine what happened, physicians are asked to testify either as a lay witness or an expert witness.
However, as you can see, it is fertile ground for incorrect decisions to take root. But, do not be too hard on yourself: favoring the treating physician is pervasive problem in our courtrooms. Plus, a blood test confirmed the infant has it. However, von Willebrand disease is an anomalous congenital bleeding disorder nearly indistinguishable from child abuse in a clinical setting. The treating physician has a more intimate knowledge of the facts, and the doctor’s experience and education could easily qualify him as an expert. Given these facts, it would not be surprising if you believe the treating doctor is more persuasive. Which testimony do you find more credible? The local physician who treated and cared for infant’s disturbing bruises or the expert hired to testify? He testifies that, although the bruising seems indicative of child abuse, after conducting a blood test, he concluded that the bruising was caused by something called “ von Willebrand disease.” The New York expert arrogantly brushes off cross-examination questions and the Judge appears frustrated by numerous objections made during the exchange. He attests that the treating physician was “ clearly” mistaken. He quickly admits to being paid over $5,000 for his testimony. Next, the family’s expert, an out-of-state doctor from New York, takes the stand. He adds: “ I see this sort of thing every day, and it’s heartbreaking.” After accurately informing you that accidental bruising is exceedingly rare in infants, the doctor concludes the infant’s bruising is consistent with trauma caused by a severe beating. The doctor then states, “ The family was awkward, and the father was visibly irritated.” The family also offered no explanation for the infant’s condition. The treating physician testifies that, when the infant arrived in the hospital, she was covered with large bruises. Imagine you are a juror in a case involving infant abuse.
0 kommentar(er)
