Forensic mental telehealth assessment (FMTA) in the context of COVID-19.

Due to the present COVID-19 pandemic, forensic mental telehealth assessment (FMTA) is an increasingly utilized means of conducting court-sanctioned psychiatric and psychological evaluations. FMTA is not a novel development, and studies have been published during the past two decades that opine on the positive and negative implications of conducting testing and interview procedures online, in forensic and traditionally clinical matters alike. The present article examines prospects for eventual legal challenges to FMTA, describes considerations for conducting FMTA in both institutional and residential settings, and concludes that FMTA is now-due to predicted accommodations on the part of courts, attorneys, institutions, and professional guilds-a permanent part of the forensic evaluation landscape, even once the present COVID-19 pandemic has subsided.

A balanced opinion? Considering the role of the external clinical advisor in ACC processes.

The role of the external clinical advisor is critical to the adjudication of complex claims in the processes of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). This is particularly true of claims for treatment injury that occur during birth, which are often very complicated. In most cases external clinical advisors are non-treating doctors, whose opinion strongly guides the hand of ACC. This viewpoint considers the impact of the role of the external clinical advisor by using extracts from an external clinical advisor's report to show how a power imbalance can be enacted in ACC decision making processes. Also considered are the way that the normal checks and balances in the system, particularly those provided by the Health & Disability Commissioner, are bypassed in most cases. Finally, a recommendation is made to potential external clinical advisors to precisely following the standards set by the Medical Council in all cases when writing reports for ACC.

[Legal pitfalls in urology]. / Juristische "pitfalls" in der Urologie.

The juridification of medicine affects all disciplines, including urology. Therefore, in this discipline it can well happen that patients not only feel wrongly treated or complain that a treatment was not performed lege artis but also demand compensation or even bring criminal charges. From the patient point of view, the doctor is often more likely to blame for a complication that has arisen or for a hoped for but failed treatment success, than that it is accepted that a complication is typical for the intervention, which, despite the greatest medical care, unfortunately can become reality and is a fateful course. Insurance against claims for damages can be taken out. Not to be underestimated, however, is the personal burden of the accusations with which doctors are confronted by patients, relatives, expert witnesses and courts and against which one must defend oneself. This can mean additional work in addition to the normal medical workload. Therefore, the legal pitfalls in urology should be known.

The Indian dental litigation landscape: An analysis of judgments on dental negligence claims in Indian Consumer Redressal Forums.

INTRODUCTION: Dental malpractice/negligence litigations against dentists in India is not widely studied. The aim of this study is to report the Indian dentist related litigation landscape in consumer redressal forum (CRF) and to understand more of the nature of the same. MATERIAL AND METHOD: 111 cases of judgments of dental malpractice in Indian CRF were collected. Useful information was extracted, reported in a grid and statistically analyzed. Data was compared by claim, specialty, treatment offered, days lapsed and compensation awarded. P ≤ 0.05 was taken as statistically significant. RESULTS: In all, 44 (39.63%) dentists were found guilty. Thirty dentists had produced at least one evidence in their favor. Among them, 23 outcomes were in dentist's favor.(P = 0.02) The mean wait for final judgment was 1945 ±â€¯1286(193-6762) days. The mean compensation claimed was INR 577287 ±â€¯905898. Presence of evidence (dentists/patients) had an impact on the days to reach a judgment as well as compensation. CONCLUSION: Indian dental litigation landscape CRF has been described for the first time. We identified that CRF litigation of dental malpractice are few, as compared to number of procedures performed in India. Oral surgical procedures were often involved and 40% of instances, dentists were guilty and mean compensation awarded was INR 103998 ±â€¯158976.

Medicolegal structure, consequences, and recommendations for daily practice: The example of surgical infection.

Surgical infections are the leading cause of complications and have major economic consequences and medico-legal fallout. In this article, the author revisits the foundations of medical law in France and reviews the mechanisms of medical liability, the place of recommendations in the definition of "secundum Artem", or the "state-of-the-art", and the necessity to provide high quality information. The author then proposes an approach to improve safety in daily practice.

Shortage of paediatric radiologists acting as an expert witness: position statement from the British Society of Paediatric Radiology (BSPR) National Working Group on Imaging in Suspected Physical Abuse (SPA).

One of the most challenging areas of radiological imaging in children is the diagnosis of physical abuse. There is a dearth of paediatric radiologists willing to act as expert witnesses, particularly in the family courts. There are a number of reasons why radiologists may not be interested or willing to put themselves forward to work as expert witnesses in this field. A group of imaging experts recently formed the "British Society of Paediatric Radiology (BSPR) Working Group on Imaging in Suspected Physical Abuse (SPA)". The group comprises radiologists and neuroradiologists with current or previous experience of providing expert witness reports to the court in cases of SPA. The group met in January 2019 to explore pragmatic solutions to the chronic inefficiencies in both medical and legal practices and the challenges that arise from working in a legal arena with different structures, goals, and assessment criteria. Key issues concerned organisational inefficiencies, variable support from National Health Service Trusts and the Royal College of Radiologists to conduct this work, and the risk/benefit of involvement. This work is important for the patient, parents, and society in general, and highly rewarding for clinical practitioners who are involved, but there are several issues with current practices that discourage active participation. With several members of the group either retired or close to retirement, the shortage of experts is becoming a pressing issue within the UK, which requires an engaged multidisciplinary group to come up with creative solutions. Here, the group provide a consensus opinion highlighting the current barriers and potential facilitators to increasing the number of radiologists willing to provide opinions to the court.

Expert witness testimony step by step and how to prepare it.

The medical expert witness testimony is a key moment in the pathway of patient complaints as well as in the line of defense of the defendant-physician. For the defendant, it is a difficult time, often experienced as humiliating, because his or her competences are questioned, appraised and discussed in public. However, the defendant must perceive and use this encounter as an opportunity to express his/her viewpoint on the medical accident. This article provides the principal juridical rules that govern the medical expert witness testimony that must be known, as well as some practical advice on how the medical expert witness testimony evolves and how to protect oneself from the complaints, In order to enable the defendant to best prepare for this confrontation between the involved parties.

Proving whiplash injury cases in court.

Car accident victims commonly report cervical spine distortion as their injury. Problems with proving this kind of injury, including its effects, come to light in insurance claims adjustment, and if the tortfeasor driver or the insurer refuses to pay compensation or general damages, such problems should be resolved in court. This paper discusses legal issues involved in proving whiplash-associated disorders under the law as it stood before 7 November 2019 and after the rules of civil procedure were amended.

[Prerequisites for a convincing (neuro-)urology opinion : Importance of objectivity in the legal sense of full proof, occurring under duty of compliance of the surveyed person]. / Voraussetzungen für ein überzeugendes (neuro)urologisches Gutachten : Stellenwert der Objektivierung im Sinne des Vollbeweises unter Mitwirkung(spflicht) des Probanden.

Convincing urological expert opinions require the objectification of medical history complaints of health and functional disorders in the legal sense of obtaining full proof. This means that there is such a high degree of likelihood, beyond any doubt of a reasonable person observing the condition (Bundessozialgericht Entscheidung [BSGE] 32, 203/207). This requires a comprehensive general and special medical history survey, as well as a series of urological examination procedures in the hands of experienced urologists. In addition, it is necessary to observe the fundamentals of the various legal areas, from which the opinion order comes from, without exception. However, it would not be possible in all cases to achieve an unequivocal clarification of the problem in question. Nevertheless, it should be ensured that the best possible approximation to the actual truth of the case is reached. In this way, the democratic fundamental right of all the appraised persons to equal treatment could be met in the best possible way and optimal support to the commissioning institutions would be made available.

[Medicolegal Assessment for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain - 4th Update of the German Guideline for Medicolegal Assessment of Persons in Chronic Pain]. / Begutachtung chronischer muskuloskeletaler Schmerzen.

Medicolegal assessments of claimants with chronic muskuloskeletal pain conditions are frequent. The first German guideline published in 2005 for the medicolegal assessment of claimants in chronic pain is now available in its 4th version (AWMF register number 094 - 003). It gives recommendations for the procedure and serves to ensure the quality of expert opinions when complaints about chronic pain are the leading symptom. In the current version, the indications for ordering medical assessments in pain syndromes have been reformulated, the assessment criteria have been adapted to ICF specifications, and an unequivocal distinction has been introduced between questions of state and causal assessment. A separate chapter on symptom validity assessment has been engrafted.

[Handling of retrieved implants in orthopedic surgery : Results of a survey within the framework of the EndoCert initiative]. / Bestandsaufnahme zum Umgang mit ausgebauten Implantaten in der orthopädischen Chirurgie : Ergebnisse einer Umfrage im Rahmen der EndoCert-Initiative.

BACKGROUND: Although investigations of retrieved medical implants can provide valuable information about the cause of the revision, there is a lack of information, which could be avoided by consequent failure analyses. In the framework of the EndoCert certification system it is obligatory to record and report incidents. OBJECTIVES: The present work examines how the willingness to report has developed in certified arthroplasty centers and which method of handling retrievals is preferred and actually used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: On the basis of a questionnaire for handling retrievals, all 508 arthroplasty centers that were certified till June 1, 2016, were included (return rate = 97.2%). RESULTS: A total of 93.3% of the centers have established an algorithm for handling of retrievals and 83.0% of the centers prefer to hand out the retrieval to the patient, while only 25.7% wish to store it in the center for research purposes. In the case of a potential incident as the cause of revision, centers prefer to forward the retrieval to damage analysis, whereby the centers act in different ways, depending on the case. An implant fracture is, e.g., considered a reportable event in most cases without temporal limitation. On the other hand, breakage or failure of surgical instruments is considered not to be reported in the case of more than half of the centers. In 2014 and 2015, approximately 71% of EPZs reported no incidents. CONCLUSIONS: According to our survey, many certified arthroplasty centers are sensitized to careful handling of retrievals. The treatment of the explanted components is conducted in different ways. The assessment of whether an incident is to be reported shows large differences. In view of the relatively high number of revision surgeries, the number of reports to the authorities appears to be low.

[Glasses as Relevant Factor in Expert Opinions]. / Die Brille als Bewertungsfaktor im Gutachten.

Optical correction is an independent factor in expert opinions. It is outlined how this should be considered in different legal areas.

[Expert Opinions in Court: Liability of the Expert]. / Erörterung eines Sachverständigengutachtens vor Gericht und die Haftung des Sachverständigen.

Experts in criminal, civil and, increasingly, in social court cases have to present their expert opinions in court. This should be regarded not only as a burden, even if this may at times appear superfluous to the expert, perhaps because the discussion is mere repetition of the opinion he has already written, or because the questions appear to be biased against the expert. Nonetheless, the expert is always advised to appear calm and objective during the interrogation by judges and parties or participants and their legal representatives, and should not allow himself or herself to be provoked by questioning. Furthermore, it may be necessary to correct the written expert statement in the course of the interrogation, but this can be a sign of a truly competent medical expert. The expert consulted can be held liable for adverse health effects resulting from the interrogation and investigation, as well as for deliberate or grossly faulty reports.