The assessment of expert testimony relevance and admissibility in medical malpractice cases in the Czech Republic. Can American judicial practice help us?
Abstract
The relevance and admissibility of expert medical testimony in relation to medical malpractice suits requires a more successful development of formal criteria and a more intentional compliance with efficient judicial procedures. The American judicial system provides an excellent model for implementation of a critical approach to knowledge collection, the evaluation of the validity of scientifically sound information, and the examination of expert's testimony on the basis of a sound methodology.
An analysis of the assessment and application of reliability yields evidence that assuring standards to improve the quality of expert medical testimony will increase the overall probability of a fair outcome during the judicial process. Applying these beneficial strategies in medical malpractice cases will continue to support further considerations of promoting justice and solving problems through sufficient scientific means.