Australia: Expert witnesses in medical negligence cases: Inside the fight against hired guns

Last Updated: 16 April 2017
Article by Bill Madden

Expert witnesses play a crucial role in professional indemnity cases, and yet they are viewed with a lot of distrust.

A common option for those in a legal pickle — whether it's to right some wrong, prove one's own innocence or another's guilt — is to obtain the services of an expert witness. And providing those expert witnesses has become something of a business.

You can see that simply by roaming around the web. For instance, Google "expert witness" and you will come across ExpertsDirect, just one of many services offering to locate experts on subjects ranging from herbicides, dingoes and machine failures to weather routing, cardiology and renal disease.

For the medical profession, there is much scepticism about this system; that expert witnesses are not there just to share their informed insights on abstruse, technical topics. Aren't they just guns for hire, recruited by lawyers to spin the evidence as required? Isn't truth in the legal system less about a dispassionate assessment of the evidence base and more the product of an adversarial tussle whose ultimate objective is to sway a jury of right-thinking men and women?

Independence

Lawyers wanting help with their case go to ExpertsDirect, supply an outline of what they are looking for and get a quote from the appropriate expert witness.

Fees start at $3000 for a medicolegal report, but can cost many more dollars for complicated cases, according to ExpertsDirect founder and lawyer Richard Skarnik. But he stresses this is not about offering up a list of guns for hire.

"The best way we have found to weed out hired guns is to look at their past case history. It's very easy to do by going on [the Australian Legal Information Institute website]. You can see bad judgements against them. We sometimes look for judges who have said that the expert witness didn't provide a well-reasoned report."

He also looks at how many times an expert witness has been called by the plaintiff or defendant to see if they are skewed in presenting reports from both sides.

"We want experts who are independent," says Mr Skarnik.

"If you've got a good case, I'd rather go to an independent expert as the judge will give more weight to that expert rather than run the risk of the evidence not being accepted."

Does the hired gun still exist? Mr Skarnik says yes, but these gunslingers are not what they once were. They've been run out of town, shunned by the mainstream.

HIV/AIDS denial

In 2007, Dr Valendar Turner, then a WA-based consultant emergency specialist, was engaged by the defence team of a SA man who had been convicted of endangering life by having sex with three women without telling them he was HIV positive.

The man, Andre Parenzee, was seeking leave to appeal his conviction based on what his legal team said was new evidence that proved his innocence.

In an affidavit provided to the Supreme Court of SA, Dr Turner said he was a member of the Perth Group — a group of scientists and activists who believe the HIV virus has never been properly isolated from AIDS patients — and that there was no basis in antibody testing that suggested Mr Parenzee infected the women with HIV.

In short, he was arguing that HIV did not exist.

In response, the prosecution raised a small army of HIV experts, led by Professor Robert Gallo, director and co-founder of the Institute of Human Virology at the University of Maryland School of Medicine in Baltimore, US. He was the man credited with finding the HIV virus back in the 1980s.

It was a protracted hearing where the science of HIV seemed to be on trial.
In his decision not to allow the appeal, Justice John Sulan seemed exasperated. He lashed out at Dr Turner in his judgement, saying he had "no practical experience" in treatment of viral diseases, and that his opinions seemed to be based on reading and critiquing the scientific literature.

Justice Sulan found that Dr Turner had attempted to authenticate his views in a misleading way, by claiming collaboration with a well-known HIV expert on new experiments.

The expert, however, said there had never been a collaboration as such, adding that he had only agreed to provide blood samples.

Rogue witnesses

Dr Turner's case is seen as a cautionary tale. But the issue remains a concern, particularly for those doctors caught up in medical negligence claims where a rogue expert witness can, through their evidence, drag out claims that have little merit, with all the collective misery that often brings.

It is worth pointing to the AMA's code of ethics, which calls on expert witnesses to provide "informed, fair opinion based on impartial, expert evidence when reasonably called upon to do so".

There are also practice notes issued by courts that outline the expectations of expert witnesses to provide relevant and impartial evidence in their area of expertise.

However, in Australian jurisdictions, expert witnesses involved in judicial proceedings have immunity from prosecution for what they tell courts, even if what they say seems to stretch the truth as we know it — even to the point that it breaks.

The argument for this immunity is simple — the court system wants to ensure that witnesses are able to give their evidence freely for the higher interest of justice without being worried about facing prosecution.

Immunity — the same immunity given to dodgy barristers or bad judges — is also about ensuring there is an end point to the law and that litigation doesn't run forever.

Unpacking immunity

However, this immunity has been discussed and questioned in Australian legal circles, as a result of a 2011 Supreme Court of the UK ruling, which ditched the protection altogether.

The case involved Paul Jones, who had been knocked off his motorbike by a drunk driver, and decided to sue for damages saying he had physical and psychiatric injury. But he later claimed his expert witness, the psychologist Dr Sue Kaney, had ended up signing a court report that his psychological reaction was only an adjustment reaction, not PTSD as Dr Kaney had originally told him.

Mr Jones alleged that Dr Kaney had not changed her mind as a result of new evidence, but had simply been under pressure. As a result, he had been forced to settle his legal case for considerably less damages than he deserved.

The UK Supreme Court ruled that Mr Jones had a right to claim damages against Dr Kaney. The court said it was not convinced the removal of immunity might make experts reluctant to provide their services, noting there was no immunity against disciplinary proceedings where an expert witness has negligently given an opinion. Nor was it convinced that removing immunity would create lawyers legal work for life in an endless merry-go-round of litigation.

Last year, Australian legal firm HWL Ebsworth wrote in an article on the case that the floodgates to litigation had not been opened by the ruling.

"There has been some industry reports that experts are more careful and are giving more measured advice in order to avoid having to make concessions at a later stage in the proceedings when their views are found to be unsupportable," the firm wrote.

"Whilst expert witnesses are still afforded immunity in Australia, it is a timely reminder to lawyers to ensure that experts are fully briefed with all relevant materials and for experts to ensure that they set out the basis of their opinions in their reports."

Call in the watchdog

Meanwhile, there have been calls for other ways to tackle expert witnesses who go rogue — namely, through the greater use of AHPRA to investigate.

Speaking at the Medico-Legal Congress in Sydney last month, Bill Madden, special counsel with Carroll and O'Dea Lawyers, said if someone were being deliberately selective with evidence, they should face disciplinary action.

"It would be useful to have more scope for disciplinary action for dubious expert evidence ... If there was a doctor who started giving a lot of evidence that HIV didn't exist, then I imagine the Medical Council would be very interested, very quickly."

There is one precedent in Australia. Mr Madden mentions the case of Dr Zelko Mustac, a psychiatrist who was suspended for six months in 2004 by the Medical Board of WA for misusing the Test of Memory Malingering against two workers trying to claim compensation.

The test was designed to detect feigned amnesia and claims of pervasive difficulties learning new information.

But the board found Dr Mustac used the test to claim the patients were lying about their need for compensation.

Those damning assessments were written up in his medicolegal reports, which were used by a WA Government insurer to determine workers' compensation.

Dr Mustac, who did go back to practise and has recently relocated to Sydney specialising in addiction psychiatry, did not respond to Australian Doctor's calls.

Dr Jonathan Phillips (pictured), a psychiatrist with 40 years' experience as an expert witness, says this punitive approach through AHPRA should be used in extremis, simply because expert witness misconduct can vary widely.

There are shoddy medicolegal reports and then there are those who are just plain unethical.

Judges and the medical profession could deal with the shoddy reports through peer critique, or denying them any further medicolegal work, he says.

But the unethical expert witnesses, those styled as hired guns, are a different story.

"If I thought there was something criminal going on rather than poorer standards, I would be under no compulsion whatsoever in referring the matter to the Medical Council," said Dr Phillips.

"You have to have a high level of concern to report directly to the Medical Council because you are immediately putting another person's practice in question."

Hot-tubbing

Another option for reform is more straightforward: the creation of expert conclaves.

Also known colloquially as 'hot-tubbing', it's a process where expert witnesses called by both sides in a looming court case are put in a room to discuss key evidence. They then draft a joint report, stating matters agreed, not agreed and reasons for disagreement, which is tendered to the court.

Some courts in Australia have the power to direct expert witnesses to meet in an expert conclave before trial. However, it is often used on a voluntary basis by parties involved in complex medical negligence cases.

Dr Phillips says he enjoys the opportunity to collaborate with his peers on major issues in the case. He also points out it's an easy way to weed out hired guns who are there to disrupt the process.

The other option is more familiar — it is the idea of the courts appointing their own independent experts.

Dr Phillips can see the merit in sensitive cases, such as sexual abuse, where the duel between expert witnesses can be counterproductive and do away with experts appointed by legal counsels.

But the idea is not liked much by lawyers.

For them, the adversarial system is the system to distinguish truth from falsity. So cross-examination of expert witnesses at trial, they argue, should remain central to testing the validity of the evidence before the court.

It is a common observation that medical and legal professions inhabit different worlds. But this issue is where these worlds collide.

One doctor involved in last month's medicolegal congress in Sydney described the law as a game, and that knowing how to play the game is the way lawyers arrive at their truth. A few lawyers stood up to object.

Most doctors would say she was right. But for the time being — at least when it comes to expert witness — the rules by which the game is played will remain as they are.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Bill Madden
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions