Expert Witness Features – page 37

And the greatest of these is: RESPECT!

The relationship between doctors and lawyers is based on three 'F' words: Faith, Fear and Finance. Let me expand on those, based entirely on my personal observations – without any tedious references to learned medical or legal journals.

The need for faith is obvious, or should be. Doctors need faith in their legal advisers, whether it be for conveyancing or divorce (probably the two commonest uses of legal advice). Lawyers need almost as much faith when they are ill and require the services of a doctor.

This cosy relationship cannot continue as the second 'F' word comes in: fear. We, the doctors, have a healthy fear of being sued for our errors, although that is not – or should not be – why we try and get it right. The whole process of being sued has become even more tedious and unpleasant. In the 'good old days' our professional indemnity companies took over and dealt with everything.

So how do you find the right expert?

Carefeul selection of the right expert for a case can pay dividends. In the post-CPR climate it is particularly important to make the right selection because of:

The requirement for experts to be independent and to owe their first duty to the court.
The judicial preference for single joint experts – the parties and the court will only have one report and opinion to consider.
The reduced scope for multiple experts and 'expert shopping'.
The need for transparency and the impossibility of 'coaching' an expert in what to write and say.

A client might also judge a solicitor by their choice of an expert.

Asbestos: surely we should know the risk?

In the summer issue of Your Witness Peter Robinson of Bradley Environmental outlined the difficulty of accurately assessing exposure to asbestos in a working environment. As he pointed out, cases arising out of recent events are rare, the great bulk of exposure now reaping its toll having occurred upwards of 20 years ago.

What should be surprising, however, is that there are any prosecutions these days at all. Everyone knows – or should know by now – that asbestos is a dangerous substance when it is disturbed. The law to control the limits of working with asbestos have been long in the formulation and subject to an enormous amount of publicity, both in the trade press (such as Construction National) and on national television.

Home James! Is a new driving force at work?

Think of chauffeur-driven vehicles these days and the chances are you will immediately think of garishly daubed Hummers and bright pink stretch limo's filled with screaming hen party attendants falling over the back seat while trying to recreate Tom Hanks in Big. I certainly do.

But are we missing a trick here? Given the largely indifferent change in the amount of traffic around London due to the congestion charge, and the consistently high train prices for a decent seat, could chauffer driven services be the answer for today's legal professional? I decided to find out.

Pain and trauma: it can be what you make of it

PSYCHOLOGISTS are regularly instructed in personal injury litigation to assess for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and chronic pain; however, problems are inherent in the assessment of each. Firstly, both are characterised by subjectively reported symptoms, so that careful assessment is required to discern real from factitious PTSD and genuine pain from malingered presentation. Secondly, both are potentially associated with financial gain via litigation or with personal gain, such as sympathy and care from an overinvolved spouse/partner or time away from a disliked job. Again, careful assessment is required. This article highlights typical instructions to psychologists in chronic pain litigation and the key characteristics of PTSD in relation to medicolegal assessments; in both cases the need for a comprehensive assessment is paramount.