Błędy zawodowe i metodologiczne w przypadkach błędów medycznych
Expert witnesses professional and methodological mistakes in medical malpractice cases

Summary/Abstract: As any case of alleged medical malpractice, whether in a civil or criminal proceeding, cannot be resolved without involving the expert witness who assists the police, office of public prosecution or the court to rule on merits, the authorsaim to identify the most significant questionable and incorrect practices of expert witnesses based on the review of 11 years dataset (2008–2019) consisting of 3098 expert opinions and expert testimonies in both criminal and civil proceedings in Slovakia. To the necessary extent, the legal frameworkfor expert witnesses in Slovakia is also presented. The authors also aim to focus on the significant findings of the dataset, such as the most frequent specialities in which alleged malpractice occurred, which are surgery, emergency medicine, anaesthesiology and intensive care, gynaecology and obstetrics, internal medicine, neurology and paediatrics. The publication is also aimed at the most frequent incorrect or questionable practices of expert witnesses, such as ex-post case analysis, questionable practice related to the obtaining ofmedical records, improper use of consultants by the expert witness, misinterpretation of the autopsy records and autopsy diagnoses and the deficiencies in the processing the case file by the expert witness. The authors focused on important findings from the dataset, such as the specializations where the alleged medical malpractice most frequently occur-red, i.e. surgery, emergency medicine, anesthesiology and intensive care, gynaecology and obstetrics, internal medicine, neurology and paediatrics. The publication deals with the most common erroneous or questionable expertpractices, such as ex-post analysis of the case, questionable practice related to obtaining medical records, inappropriate selection of consultants by an expert, misinterpretation of documentation from post-mortem examinations and de-ficiencies in the preparation of an opinion based on the case file by a court expert.

• Details
• Contents