Expert Witness Disclosure – Proposed Changes to Federal Rule 26

There are proposed significant changes to the disclosure requirement features of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26. These changes will extend work product immunity.Congress makes changes to the widely endorsed Aproposal awaiting Supreme Court approval on May 1, 2010, as of December 1, 2010 Experts will no longer be required to disclose draft versions of their FRCP 26(a)(2) Reports. Furthermore they will no longer be required to disclose communication including electronic communication between the expert and the retaining attorney

“Proximate Cause” & Scientific Causation

Forensic Psychiatrists, Psychologists and all testifying expert physicians are expected to offer their opinions in both civil and criminal matters to the standard of proof of “reasonable medical certainty” (“reasonable medical probability” in California). However, the legal definitions of causation (proximate cause) and the notion of causation from the perspective of behavioral science are not the same, and sometimes actually diverge. This article by Dr. Levy attempts to explain those differences, explicate the potential dilemmas, and suggest some pitfalls for the testifying medical-legal expert to avoid when discussing “causation” in its legal context.

William Daubert v. Merrill Dow

The following is the appellate opinion in Frye v. United States which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia in 1923. Until the Daubert v. Merrill Dow US Supreme Court decision in 1993 and the Daubert standard for expert testimony replaced the Kelly/Frye standard in Federal matters (Frye still remains the standard […]

Frye v. United States

The following is the appellate opinion in Frye v. United States which was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, District of Columbia in 1923. Until the Daubert v. Merrill Dow US Supreme Court decision in 1993 and the Daubert standard for expert testimony replaced the Kelly/Frye standard in Federal matters (Frye still remains the standard […]

Liability for the Psychiatrist Expert Witness

Professor Renee Binder, MD, former Acting Chairman, Department of Psychiatry UCSF, former President American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law and Chief of the Forensic Psychiatric Fellowship Program at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine, has written an excellent and comprehensive article discussing the various liabilities that a psychiatrist testifying as a […]

Expert Discovery Provisions in Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

The following is the text of the parts of Rule 26, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which deal directly with expert discovery, in civil actions: Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery; Duty of Disclosure (a) Required Disclosures; Methods to Discover Additional Matter. * * * (2) Disclosure of Expert Testimony. (A) In addition to the […]

Admissability of Scientific Evidence – Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993)

The U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Daubert v. Merrell Dow (1993) rejected the Frye  test and Frye-plus tests for the admissibility of certain scientific evidence (see admissibility tests lecture).  Instead of “general acceptance” in the scientific community, the Daubert test requires an independent judicial assessment of reliability.  Among other purposes, the Daubert test is intended […]

Frye v. The United States

No. 3968 Court of Appeals of District of Columbia 293 F. 1013; 1923 U.S. App. LEXIS 1712; 54 App. D.C. 46; 34 A.L.R. 145 December 3, 1923, Decided PRIOR HISTORY:   [**1] Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. CORE TERMS: blood pressure, deception, systolic, conscious, discovery, scientific principle, expert testimony, scientific, experiments, […]

Experts & Confidentiality – Pettus v. Cole – Cal Ct. Appeal 1996

In California Psychiatric Experts Are Under the Same Privilege/Confidentiality Obligations  as are Treating Psychiatrists California Appellate Decision Regarding Privilege/Confidentiality Duties of Non-Treating, Psychiatric Experts: see PETTUS V. COLE, 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 46 (1996) Court of Appeal, First District, Division 2, California from the Headnotes: “Two psychiatrists violated the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act(Civ. Code, S 56 […]