The combative paediatric expert remains anonymous

 

Commentary

In this case the judge had a number of criticisms of the expert paediatrician and as a result there was a subsequent hearing to consider whether to identify Dr G. He was invited to attend the hearing and was represented by Counsel. Dr G sought for all references to him to be anonymised in the judgment. The other parties did not support anonymisation.

Learning points

General

• Know and stay within the evidence: Distinguish established evidence from inference, hypothesis and clinical experience.

• Maintain independence: Form opinions independently rather than adopting the conclusions or terminology of other professionals.

• Read the primary evidence: Review source records, reports, investigations and images personally where they materially inform the opinion.

• Accurately characterise other evidence: Do not attribute conclusions to another expert that they did not actually make.

• Address contrary explanations: Consider plausible alternative explanations and explain why they are accepted, rejected or remain possible.

• Follow the expert-report requirements: Explicitly set out assumptions, differential diagnosis, reasoning and areas of uncertainty where required.

• Be transparent about limitations: Acknowledge limitations in the research base rather than becoming defensive about gaps in evidence.

• Separate observation from inference: Make clear what is observed, what is established, and what is inferred from those findings.

• Communicate proportionately: Avoid overstating certainty, particularly where evidence is statistical, limited or capable of alternative interpretation.

• Professional demeanour matters: A combative or defensive presentation can undermine confidence in otherwise substantive evidence.

Paediatricians

• Undertake an explicit differential diagnosis: For unexplained bruising, systematically consider relevant haematological, metabolic, infectious, dermatological and connective-tissue causes.

• Review investigations personally: Do not simply record that blood tests were "normal"; review and, where relevant, analyse the actual results.

• Obtain an adequate family history: Clarify reports of easy bruising, bleeding disorders and relevant connective-tissue features, including their severity and medical confirmation.

• Consider age and developmental stage: Interpret injury patterns against the child's mobility, activities and realistically achievable mechanisms.

• Describe injuries precisely: Record each significant bruise by location, size, appearance and other relevant characteristics rather than relying on broad descriptors such as "many" or "small".

• Correlate photographs with examination findings: Where photographs are relied upon, identify and assess the individual injuries sufficiently to demonstrate independent consideration.

• Distinguish association from diagnosis: A bruise being statistically associated with abuse does not, by itself, establish that an individual bruise was inflicted.

• Avoid inferring intention too readily: Distinguish the medical evidence about mechanism or likelihood from conclusions about a person's intention.

• Explain the evidential basis: Identify which conclusions derive from research, which from clinical experience, and the limitations of the underlying studies.

• State uncertainty and alternatives clearly: Explain where accidental injury remains possible, how plausible competing explanations have been assessed, and the degree of confidence in the final opinion.

To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. 

Already a member? Login