The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?

Flawed expert scientific testimony has compromised truth finding in American litigation, including in medical malpractice and in product liability cases. The Federal Rules of Evidence and the Supreme Court in Daubert and other cases have established standards for testimony that include reliability and relevance, and established judges as gatekeepers. However, because of lack of understanding of scientific issues, judges have problems with this role, and juries have difficulties with scientific evidence. Professionals and the judiciary have made some advances, but a better system involving the court's use of neutral experts and a mechanism to hold experts accountable for improprieties is needed.

[1]  D. Rennie,et al.  The Second International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication. , 1994, JAMA.

[2]  J. Sanders.  The Bendectin Litigation: A Case Study in the Life Cycle of Mass Torts , 1992 .

[3]  D Moher,et al.  CONSORT: an evolving tool to help improve the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials. , 1998, JAMA.

[4]  M. Hicks,et al.  Evaluating peer reviews. Pilot testing of a grading instrument. , 1994, JAMA.

[5]  C. Desch,et al.  Performance measurement in cancer care , 1998, Cancer.

[6]  H. Hiatt,et al.  A Measure of Malpractice: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation , 1993 .

[7]  P. Gildenberg,et al.  Head Injury: Variability of Course and Presence of Confounding Factors , 1989, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[8]  D. Brooten.  Methodological issues linking costs and outcomes. , 1997, Medical care.

[9]  N. Black,et al.  Development of the review quality instrument (RQI) for assessing peer reviews of manuscripts. , 1999, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[10]  Sheila Jasanoff,et al.  Science at the bar : law, science, and technology in America , 1996 .

[11]  J. Birkmeyer.  Outcomes research and surgeons. , 1998, Surgery.

[12]  C. Burckhardt,et al.  Conceptualization and measurement of quality of life as an outcome variable for health care intervention and research. , 1999, Journal of advanced nursing.

[13]  J. Snyder.  Silicone breast implants. Can emerging medical, legal, and scientific concepts be reconciled? , 1997, The Journal of legal medicine.

[14]  M. Chassin,et al.  The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on Health Care Quality. , 1998, JAMA.

[15]  Mitchell R. Green.  Causation in the Courts. (Book Reviews: Bendectin and Birth Defects. The Challenges of Mass Toxic Substances Litigation.) , 1996 .

[16]  J. Brazier,et al.  A checklist for judging preference-based measures of health related quality of life: learning from psychometrics. , 1999, Health economics.

[17]  J. Sanders,et al.  From science to evidence: the testimony on causation in the Bendectin cases. , 1993, Stanford law review.

[18]  J. Wennberg,et al.  Understanding geographic variations in health care delivery. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[19]  J. Bryant,et al.  Health policy approaches to measuring and valuing human life: conceptual and ethical issues. , 1995, American journal of public health.

[20]  H. Feldman.  Science and Uncertainty in Mass Exposure Litigation , 1995 .

[21]  G. Annas,et al.  Scientific evidence in the courtroom. The death of the Frye rule. , 1994, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  D A Kessler,et al.  The basis of the FDA's decision on breast implants. , 1992, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  Jonathan D. Casper,et al.  Blindfolding the Jury to Verdict Consequences: Damages, Experts, and the Civil Jury , 1992 .

[24]  P. Gerszten.  Outcomes research: a review. , 1998, Neurosurgery.

[25]  W. Stehbens,et al.  Basic philosophy and concepts underlying scientific peer review. , 1999, Medical hypotheses.

[26]  S. Brewer.  Scientific expert testimony and intellectual due process. , 1998, The Yale law journal.

[27]  M Dijkers,et al.  Measuring quality of life: methodological issues. , 1999, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[28]  D. Hensler,et al.  Understanding Mass Personal Injury Litigation: A Socio-Legal Analysis , 1993 .

[29]  D. Rennie,et al.  Measuring the quality of trials: the quality of quality scales. , 1999, JAMA.

[30]  R. Baltussen,et al.  The interpretation of results of economic evaluation: explicating the value of health. , 1997, Health economics.

[31]  Health-related quality of life as an outcome in organizational research. , 1997, Medical care.