The Daubert standard, a primer for pain specialists

Pain Medicine

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 75-80

  Kulich, Ronald J ^a,b,c   Driscoll, Jessica ^d   Prescott Jr , John C ^e   Pelletier, Nina J ^e   Driscoll, Stephen ^c   Cooke, William ^c   Correa, Leopoldo ^c   Mehta, Noshir R ^c  

^a MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DENTAL MEDICINE   (United States)

^d SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTIEMETIC AGENT; BENDECTIN; RUBELLA VACCINE;

ARTICLE; BIRTH DEFECT; CLINICAL OBSERVATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COURT; CRIMINAL LAW; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; EXPERT WITNESS; FETUS MALFORMATION; FORENSIC MEDICINE; HUMAN; JURISPRUDENCE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL SPECIALIST; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; NAUSEA; PAIN; RELIABILITY; STANDARDIZATION; ARTHROPATHY; CHRONIC PAIN; DRUG SCREENING; FIBROMYALGIA; HEALTH SURVEY; LAW SUIT; MALINGERING; PHYSICIAN; REVIEW; TREATMENT FAILURE;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EXPERT TESTIMONY; HUMANS; PAIN; PRACTICE GUIDELINES; PRACTICE MANAGEMENT, MEDICAL; QUALITY OF HEALTH CARE; REFERENCE STANDARDS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0141452067     PISSN: 15262375     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1046/j.1526-4637.2003.03007.x     Document Type: Article

References (46)

1. Brogdon BG. Forensic radiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1998. p. 364.
2. Kulich RJ, McAlary P, Driscoll S, et al. Forensic practice by pain specialists, a survey of current practice patterns and review of the current standard of care. San Diego, CA: IASP, 2002.
3. Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 1993.
4. Frye v United States, 293 F. 1013, D.C. Cir., 1923.
5. Millow SJ. Junk science judo: Self-defense against health scares & scams. Washington, DC: The Cato Institute, 2001.
6. McGraw WR, Taylor S. Judicial overview of expert testimony for independent medical examiners. A perspective from the bench. Disability Med 2002.; 2:17-19.
7. General Electric Co. v Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 142, 1997.
8. Grove WM, Barden RC. Protecting the integrity of the legal system: The admissibility of testimony from mental health experts under Daubert/Kumho analyses. Psychol Public Policy Law 1999;5:224-42.
9. Kumho Tire Co. v Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141, 1999.
10. Tarantino JA. Litigating neck and back injuries. Costa Mesa, CA: James Publishing, 2002.
11. Canavan, 432 Mass 304, 2000.
12. Commonwealth v Sands, 424 Mass. 184-186, 1997.
13. Studebaker CL, Goodman-Delahunty J. Expert testimony in the courts, the influence of Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho decisions. Part 1. Psychol Public Policy Law 2002;8:2.
14. Reference manual of scientific evidence, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center, 2000.
15. Gatowski SI, Dobbin SA, Richardson JT, et al. Asking the gatekeepers: A national survey of judges on judging expert evidence in a post-Daubert world. Law Human Behav 2001;25:433-58.
16. Arkansas HB 2521.
17. Shuman DW, Champagne A, Whitaker E. Assessing the believability of expert witnesses: Science in the jury box. Jurimetrics 1996;37:23-34.
18. Kulich RJ. Chronic pain, forensic assessment, ethical and clinical practice issues for the pain clinician. Curr Rev Pain 1999;3:61-6.
19. Shuman DW. Expertise in law, medicine, and health care. J Health Polit Policy Law 2000;26:267-90..
20. Huber PW. Galileo's revenge-junk science in the courtroom. New York: Basic Books, 1991.
21. Hagan MA. Whores of the court: The fraud of psychiatric testimony and the rape of American justice. New York: Regan Books, 1997.
22. Kaufman HH. The expert witness: Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: What can be done? Sci Justice 2002;41:7-20.
23. Kulich RJ, Kay R, Gibbons M, et al. Treating the injured worker, incentives to reduce care. American Pain Society Bulletin, 2001. p. 7-9.
24. Berensen SP, Drucker P. Strategies for successfully defending industry-wide product liability litigation. Product Safety & Liability Reporter, Sept 17, 1999.
25. Spears v Unisys Corp., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8745, E.E. Mich., May 15, 1995.
26. Hadler J. J Occup Environ Med 1996;38:469-76.
27. Yeager v Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, 88 F 3rd 376 [6th circuit].
28. Moses AJ. Daubert, pain, evidence, and inference in treating TMJ. Defense Counsel Journal 1997;64: 613-6.
29. Wolfe F. The fibromyalgia problem. J Rheumatol 1997;27:1247-9.
30. Sturner WQ, Hermann MA, Boden C, et al. The Frye hearing in Florida: An attempt to exclude scientific evidence. J Forensic Sci 2001;45:908-10.
31. Custer WV, Kertscher ET. The development of judicial policy on the phenomenon of multiple chemical sensitivity in the post-Daubert era. Toxicol Ind Health 1999;15:428-31.
32. McAbee GN. Osteopathic physicians and expert medical testimony. J Am Osteopath Assoc 1997;97: 47-8.
33. Crowhorn v Boyle, 793 A.2d 422, Del. Super., 2002.
34. Washburn v Merck, 213 EM 627, NY, 2000.
35. Shapiro RS. Health care provider's liability exposure for inappropriate pain management. J Law Med Ethics 1996;24:360-4.
36. Rosoff AJ. Evidence-based medicine and the law: The courts confront clinical practice guidelines. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2001. www.ahrq.gov.
37. Rogers R, Shuman DW. The mental state at the time of the offense measure: It's validation and admissibility under Daubert. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2000;28:33-7.
38. Studebaker CL, Goodman-Delahunty J. Expert testimony in the courts. The influence of Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho decisions. Part 2. Psychol Public Policy Law 2002;8(3).
39. Lally SJ. Should human figure drawings be admitted into court. J Pers Assess 2001;76:135-49.
40. Garb HN, Florio CM, Grove WM. The validity of the Rorschach and the MMPI. Psychol Sci 1998;9: 402-4.
41. U.S. District Court, Western District of Louisiana, Criminal Action No 99-20063-01, Judge Tucker L. Melancon, April 17, 2000.
42. Reed JE. Fixed vs. flexible neuropsychological test batteries under the Daubert standard for the admissibility of scientific evidence. Behav Sci Law 1996; 14:315-22.
43. Dow DM, Maitz EA, Mandel S, et al. The contribution of neuropsychological assessment in the determination of impairment and disability for persons with mild traumatic brain injury. Disability Med 2002;2:4-10.
44. Ferris v Pennsylvania Federation Broth. Of Maintenance of Way, 153F. Supp. 2d 736, E.D.Pa, 2001.
45. Kulich RJ, Kreis PG, Fishman SM, et al. Forensic issues in pain. Review of current practice. Pain Pract 2001;1:119-35.
46. Santos v George Knight and Company, Massachusetts Department of Industrial Accidents, Board No. 03426295, October 2000.