Expert opinions decode medical information into clear evidence based on unbiased facts for court use. They are critical for legal decisions, especially those involving technical subjects. Without experts, courts would be reliant on non-experts who may make decisions based on misinformation or an incomplete understanding of the subject matter, which can lead to unjust legal outcomes.
While it is important to provide an expert with as much information about the case as possible, it is equally important not to overload the expert with information that will not be useful in developing and supporting his or her opinion. The expert must be able to distinguish between the relevant and irrelevant information, and must have a good intuition as to what analyses are most important.
Typically, experts develop their opinions through a combination of anecdotal information and the interpretation of studies ranging from uncontrolled case series to randomized controlled clinical trials. It is important to understand which type of evidence the expert relies upon, as it may be a factor in the court’s decision on admissibility (see Sargon Enterprises Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal. 4th 747, 777 (2012)).
The expert should be able to explain clearly and concisely the basis for his or her opinion in terms that can be easily understood by non-experts. This is particularly important when preparing for cross-examination, as the expert will likely be challenged to articulate his or her reasoning in a manner that can withstand rigorous challenge by the opposing counsel.
About the Author
