Clinical practice guidelines as learned treatises: Understanding their use as evidence in the courtroom

Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law

Volumn 36, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 290-301

  Recupero, Patricia R ^a,b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BUTLER HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COURT; CRIMINAL JUSTICE; CRIMINAL LAW; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; EXPERT WITNESS; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MALPRACTICE; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHIATRIST; SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY;

FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PUBLISHING; UNITED STATES;

EID: 54949156804     PISSN: 10936793     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Van Tassel K: Hospital peer review standards and due process: moving from tort doctrine toward contract principles based on clinical practice guidelines. Seton Hall Law Rev 36:1179-256, 2006
2. Simon RI: Commentary: medical errors, sentinel events, and malpractice. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:99-100, 2006
3. Field MJ, Lohr KN (editors): Institute of Medicine: Clinical Practice Guidelines: Directions for a New Program. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1990
4. Noah L: Medicine's epistemology: mapping the haphazard diffusion of knowledge in the biomedical community. Ariz Law Rev 44:373-466, 2002
5. Matthews JR: Practice guidelines and tort reform: the legal system confronts the technocratic wish. J Health Politics Policy Law 24: 275-304, 1999
6. Mello MM: Of swords and shields: the role of clinical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation. U Pa Law Rev 149: 645-710, 2001
7. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: National Guideline Clearinghouse. Available online at http://www.guideline.gov. Accessed January 2, 2008
8. Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 24, § 2971-79 (1992) (repealed)
9. Fla. Stat. § 408.02(9)(1999)
10. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 342.035(8)(a)(2005)
11. Trail WR, Allen BA: Government created medical practice guidelines: the opening of Pandora's box. J Law Health 10:231-58, 1995/1996
12. Boucher v. Sayeed, 459 A.2d 87 (R.I. 1983)
13. Begel J: Maine physician practice guidelines: implications for medical malpractice litigation. Me Law Rev 47:69-103, 1995
14. United States General Accounting Office: Medical malpractice: Maine's use of practice guidelines to reduce costs. GAO/HRD-94-8. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1993
15. U.S. Congress, Office of the Technology Assessment: Impact of legal reforms on medical malpractice costs. OTA-BP-H-1 19. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, October 1993
16. U.S. Congress, Office of the Technology Assessment: Defensive medicine and medical malpractice. OTA-H-602. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1994
17. American Psychiatric Association: Statement of intent: practice guideline for the treatment of patients with Alzheimer's disease and other dementias (ed 2). Am J Psychiatry 164(suppl):5, 2007
18. Giorgi-Guarnieri D, Janofsky J, Keram E, et al: AAPL practice guideline for forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 30(suppl):S3-S40, 2002
19. Rosoff AJ: Evidence-based medicine and the law: the courts confront clinical practice guidelines. J Health Politics Policy Law 26:327-68, 2001
20. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)
21. Chan E: Note, the "Brave New World" of Daubert: true peer review, editorial peer review, and scientific validity. NYU Law Rev 70:100-34, 1995
22. Reilly v. Pinkus, 338 U.S. 269 (1949)
23. Darling v. Charleston Community Memorial Hospital, 211 N.E.2d 253 (Ill. 1965)
24. Fed. R. Evid. 803(18) (2006)
25. Walsh CJ, Rose BS: Increasing the useful information provided by experts in the courtroom: a comparison of Federal Rules of Evidence 703 and 803(18) with the evidence rules in Illinois, Ohio, and New York. Seton Hall Law Rev 26:183-254, 1995
26. United States v. Phillips, 515 F.Supp. 758 (E.D. Ky. 1981)
27. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)
28. Finder JM: The future of practice guidelines: should they constitute conclusive evidence of the standard of care? Health Matrix 10:67-117, 2000
29. Todaro GJ: The admissibility of medical testimony in Ohio: Daubert, Joiner, and Ohio's relevance-reliability standard. Clev St Law Rev 46:319-54, 1998
30. Noah L: Sanctifying scientific peer review: publication as a proxy for regulatory decision making. U Pitt Law Rev 59:677-717, 1998
31. General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997)
32. Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999)
33. Fed. R. Evid. 702 (2006)
34. Sales BD, Shuman DW: Experts in Court: Reconciling Law, Science, and Professional Knowledge. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2005
35. Lipton JP, O'Connor M, Sales BD: Rethinking the admissibility of medical treatises as evidence. Am J Law Med 17:209-48, 1991
36. Imwinkelried EJ: Coming to grips with scientific research in Daubert's "brave new world": the courts' need to appreciate the evidentiary differences between validity and proficiency studies. Brooklyn Law Rev 61:1247-84,1995
37. Kessler MW, Caputo CA: Appropriate use of scientific literature at trial in New York and other jurisdictions: is "authoritative" a magic word? Albany Law Rev 61:181-214, 1997
38. Alton v. Kitt, 431 N.E.2d 417 (Ill. App. Ct. 1982)
39. Magill RF Jr: Issues under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(18): the "learned treatise" exception to the hearsay rule. St. John's J Legal Commentary 9:49, 1993
40. Commonwealth v. Johnson, 794 N.E.2d 1214 (Mass. App. Ct. 2003)
41. Nelson LJ III: Helling v. Carey revisited: physician liability in the age of managed care. Seattle U Law Rev 25:775-819, 2002
42. Frakes v. Cardiology Consultants, P.C., 1997 Tenn. App. LEXIS 597 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)
43. Ward v. United States, 838 F.2d 182 (6th Cir. 1988)
44. Tart v. McGann, 697 F.2d 75(2nd Cir. 1982)
45. Moore v. Baker, 989 F.2d 1129 (11th Cir. 1993)
46. Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998), on remand to, Abbott v. Bragdon, 163 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 1998), cert. denied, Bragdon v. Abbott, 526 U.S. 1131 (1999)
47. Washington v. Washington Hospital Center, 579 A.2d 177 (D.C. 1990)
48. Price v. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, 515 N.E.2d 931 (Ohio Ct. App. 1986)
49. Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 262 N.W.2d 684 (Minn. 1977)
50. Pollard v. Goldsmith, 572 P.2d 1201 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1977)
51. Quigley v. Jobe, 851 P.2d 236 (Colo. Ct. App. 1992)
52. O'Brien v. Angley, 407 N.E.2d 490 (Ohio 1980)
53. Archer JD: A vexing decision (editorial). JAMA 233:273, 1975
54. Meschino v. N. Am. Drager, Inc., 841 F.2d 429 (1st Cir. 1988)
55. Drs. Lane, Bryant, Eubanks, & Dulaney v. Otts, 412 So.2d 254 (Ala. 1982)
56. Schneider v. Revici, 817 F.2d 987 (2nd Cir. 1987)
57. Ellis v. Int'l. Playtex, Inc., 745 F.2d 292 (4th Cir. 1984)
58. Conde v. Velsicol Chem. Corp., 24 F.3d 809 (6th Cir. 1994)
59. Rutigliano v. Valley Business Forms, 929 F.Supp. 779 (D.N.J. 1996)
60. Kuc GW: Comment: practice parameters as a shield against Physician liability. J Contemp Health Law Policy 10:439-68, 1994
61. Hyams AL, Brandenburg JA, Lipsitz SR, et al: Practice guidelines and malpractice litigation: a two-way street. Ann Intern Med 122: 450-55, 1995
62. Jewett v. Our Lady of Mercy Hospital, 612 N.E.2d 724 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992)
63. Rosoff AJ: The role of clinical practice guidelines in health care reform. Health Matrix 5:369-96, 1995
64. Vede v. Delta Regional Medical Center, 933 So.2d 310 (Miss. Ct. App. 2006)
65. James v. Woolley, 523 So.2d 110 (Ala. 1988)
66. Levine v. Rosen, 616 A.2d 623 (Pa. 1992)
67. Grimshaw JM, Russell IT: Effect of clinical guidelines on medical practice: a systematic review of rigorous evaluations. Lancet 342: 1317-22, 1993
68. Shuman DW: The standard of care in medical malpractice claims, clinical practice guidelines, and managed care: towards a therapeutic harmony? Cal Western Law Rev 34:99-113, 1997
69. Tzeel A: Clinical practice guidelines and medical malpractice. Physician Exec 28:36-9, 2002
70. Dartez v. Fibreboard Corp., 765 F.2d 456 (5th Cir. 1985)
71. Rinella L: Comment: the use of medical practice guidelines in medical malpractice litigation - should practice guidelines define the standard of care? U Kansas Law Rev 64:337-55, 1995
72. Flanagan v. Wesselhoeft, 765 A.2d 1203 (R.I. 2001)
73. Gutheil TG, Bursztajn HJ: Attorney abuses of Daubert hearings: junk science, junk law, or just plain obstruction? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 33:150-2, 2005
74. Sageman M: Admissibility of mental expert evidence, in Mental Health Experts: Roles and Qualifications for Court. Edited by Dattilio FM, Sadoff RL. Mechanicsburg, PA: Pennsylvania Bar Institute; 2002, pp 5-19
75. Gutheil TG, Butsztajn H: Avoiding ipse dixit mislabeling: post-Daubert approaches to expert clinical opinions. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:205-10, 2003
76. Williams CL: Evidence-based medicine in the law beyond clinical practice guidelines: what effect will EBM have on the standard of care? Washington & Lee Law Rev 61:479-533, 2004
77. Anderson WL, Parsons BM, Rennie D: Daubert's backwash: litigation-generated science. U Mich J Legal Reform 34:619-82, 2001
78. DeAngelis CD: The influence of money on medical science. JAMA 296:996-8, 2006
79. Shekelle PG, Ortiz E, Rhodes S, et al: Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA 286:1461-7, 2001
80. Badgley JS: Using medical literature on direct examination to win the "battle of the experts." Florida Bar J 77:39-42, 2003