JOIN > Urologists Practicing Outside of AUA Section Boundaries > Application Cycle

Module 18: Expert Witness

Upon completion of this module, the urologist should be able to:

  1. Articulate why the provision of expert witness testimony is a responsibility of practicing urologists.
  2. Define the strict criteria necessary to be a good expert witness.
  3. Define the criteria essential to good expert witness testimony.

No Contents
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\education\modules\ethics\Ethics\



Additional Resources


  1. Loughlin, K.R., Medical malpractice: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Urologic Clinics of North America. 36(1): p. 101-10.

  2. Social, E. and A.C.o.G.R.P.B.M.D.U.S. Legal Issues Committee, Guidelines for expert witness testimony for the specialty of medical genetics. Social, Ethical and Legal Issues Committee, American College of Medical Genetics. Genetics in Medicine, 2000. 2(6): p. 367-8.

  3. American College of Emergency, P., American College of Emergency Physicians. Expert witness guidelines for the specialty of emergency medicine. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 2001. 38(4): p. 486.

  4. Guidelines for expert witness testimony in medical malpractice litigation. Committee on Medical Liability. American Academy of Pediatrics.[Erratum appears in Pediatrics 2002 Sep;110(3):651]. Pediatrics, 2002. 109(5): p. 974-9. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/5/974.long

  5. Popp, R.J., et al., ACCF/AHA consensus conference report on professionalism and ethics. Circulation, 2004. 110(16): p. 2506-49. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/110/16/2506.long

  6. Freeman, J.M. and K.B. Nelson, Expert medical testimony: Responsibilities of medical societies. Neurology, 2004. 63(9): p. 1557-8.

  7. Williams, M.A., et al., American Academy of Neurology qualifications and guidelines for the physician expert witness. Neurology, 2006. 66(1): p. 13-4.

  8. Committee on Ethics, A.C.o.O. and Gynecologists, ACOG Committee Opinion No. 374: Expert testimony. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 2007. 110(2 Pt 1): p. 445-6.

  9. Fife, C.E., et al., Legal issues in the care of pressure ulcer patients: key concepts for healthcare providers--a consensus paper from the International Expert Wound Care Advisory PanelCopyright.[Erratum appears in Adv Skin Wound Care. 2010 Dec;23(12):540]. Advances in Skin & Wound Care, 2010. 23(11): p. 493-507.

  10. Jena, A.B., et al., Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. New England Journal of Medicine, 2011. 365(7): p. 629-36.

  11. Localio, A.R., et al., Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III. New England Journal of Medicine, 1991. 325(4): p. 245-51. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199107253250405

  12. Brennan, T.A., C.M. Sox, and H.R. Burstin, Relation between negligent adverse events and the outcomes of medical-malpractice litigation. New England Journal of Medicine, 1996. 335(26): p. 1963-7. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199612263352606

  13. Rogers, S.O., Jr., et al., Analysis of surgical errors in closed malpractice claims at 4 liability insurers. Surgery, 2006. 140(1): p. 25-33. http://www.surgjournal.com/article/S0039-6060(06)00058-4/abstract

  14. Collins, M.E., et al., Responsibility and reflection: understanding our responses to perceived errors. A response to Woodward, Lemer and Wu. Social Science & Medicine, 2009. 69(9): p. 1294-5.

  15. DesRoches, C.M., et al., Physicians' perceptions, preparedness for reporting, and experiences related to impaired and incompetent colleagues. JAMA, 2010. 304(2): p. 187-93. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/304/2/187.long

  16. Wynia, M.K., The role of professionalism and self-regulation in detecting impaired or incompetent physicians. JAMA, 2010. 304(2): p. 210-2.

  17. Wynia, M.K., The short history and tenuous future of medical professionalism: the erosion of medicine's social contract. Perspectives in Biology & Medicine, 2008. 51(4): p. 565-78.

  18. Horton, J.B., et al., Expert witness reform. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery, 2007. 120(7): p. 2095-100.

  19. Haack, S., Trial and error: the Supreme Court's philosophy of science. American Journal of Public Health, 2005. 95 Suppl 1: p. S66-73. http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044529?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed



Posttest / Transcript

Status
Module: 18 ETHICSMOD-18 Expert Witness Posttest Available  
ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT
Donate
Contact
Press/Media
Sections
Term of Use
Site Map


ADVERTISEMENT