Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, 1997/01, 97(1):47-48. doi: 10.7556/jaoa.1997.97.1.47, type of study: ,art,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Free full text   (https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7556/jaoa.1997.97.1.47/html)

Keywords:

article [2635]
expert testimony [1]
law [66]
legal proceedings [1]
malpractice [11]
negligence [1]
OMT [3924]
osteopathic manipulative treatment [3945]
physicians [334]

Abstract:

The US Supreme Court addressed the issue of expert medical and scientific testimony in the 1993 case Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The guidelines to be used as a standard for expert medical witnesses under Daubert differ from earlier standards used by many courts for more than 70 years. This commentary reviews the history of previous and current standards used to determine admissibility of medical testimony in legal proceedings and discusses the ramifications of these standards for osteopathic physicians involved in the medical malpractice process.