TY - JOUR
T1 - Poor Agreement Among Expert Witnesses in Bile Duct Injury Malpractice Litigation An Expert Panel Survey
AU - de Reuver, Philip R.
AU - Dijkgraaf, Marcel G. W.
AU - Gevers, Sjef K. M.
AU - Gouma, Dirk J.
PY - 2008
Y1 - 2008
N2 - Objective: To determine the inter-rater agreement of expert witness testimonies in bile duct injury malpractice litigation. Background Data: Malpractice litigation is an increasing concern in modem surgical practice. As most of the lawyers are not educated in medicine, expert witnesses are asked to testify about negligence of care in most jurisdictions. Although expert witnesses greatly determine the outcome of a claim, the reliability of expert testimony may be arbitrary. Methods: Surgical expert witnesses independently assessed whether negligence of care occurred by reviewing the complete medical history of closed litigation cases. All cases concerned iatrogenic bile duct injury, which occurred during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The level of agreement was measured and case characteristics associated with negligence were determined. Results: Thirteen independent experts reviewed 10 closed litigation cases. In I of the 10 cases, full agreement was observed. In 7 of the 10 cases, the highest percentage of agreeing experts was 53% or less. Chance-corrected levels of agreement were in the slight to fair range (Kendall W coefficient of concordance = 0.16-0.25). Disease-related mortality was associated with judgments on negligence (P = 0.02). Judgments on negligence of care were not associated with delay in diagnosis or the severity of injury. Experts with more years of clinical experience agreed more about negligence. Experts working in an academic setting agreed less than experts working in a teaching hospital. Finally, 8 of the 13 experts plead for the assignment of more than I expert witness to review and comment in a surgical litigation case. Conclusions: The reliability of expert witness testimonies in bile duct injury litigation is frail. Defendants, plaintiffs, experts, and lawyers should be aware of the drawbacks of expert witness testimonies. Raising consensus concerning the standards of surgical care may be required to improve agreement in judgments on negligence
AB - Objective: To determine the inter-rater agreement of expert witness testimonies in bile duct injury malpractice litigation. Background Data: Malpractice litigation is an increasing concern in modem surgical practice. As most of the lawyers are not educated in medicine, expert witnesses are asked to testify about negligence of care in most jurisdictions. Although expert witnesses greatly determine the outcome of a claim, the reliability of expert testimony may be arbitrary. Methods: Surgical expert witnesses independently assessed whether negligence of care occurred by reviewing the complete medical history of closed litigation cases. All cases concerned iatrogenic bile duct injury, which occurred during laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The level of agreement was measured and case characteristics associated with negligence were determined. Results: Thirteen independent experts reviewed 10 closed litigation cases. In I of the 10 cases, full agreement was observed. In 7 of the 10 cases, the highest percentage of agreeing experts was 53% or less. Chance-corrected levels of agreement were in the slight to fair range (Kendall W coefficient of concordance = 0.16-0.25). Disease-related mortality was associated with judgments on negligence (P = 0.02). Judgments on negligence of care were not associated with delay in diagnosis or the severity of injury. Experts with more years of clinical experience agreed more about negligence. Experts working in an academic setting agreed less than experts working in a teaching hospital. Finally, 8 of the 13 experts plead for the assignment of more than I expert witness to review and comment in a surgical litigation case. Conclusions: The reliability of expert witness testimonies in bile duct injury litigation is frail. Defendants, plaintiffs, experts, and lawyers should be aware of the drawbacks of expert witness testimonies. Raising consensus concerning the standards of surgical care may be required to improve agreement in judgments on negligence
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318186de35
DO - https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0b013e318186de35
M3 - Article
C2 - 18948809
SN - 0003-4932
VL - 248
SP - 815
EP - 820
JO - Annals of surgery
JF - Annals of surgery
IS - 5
ER -