Expert reports in alleged medical malpractice lawsuits: a critical analysis

Abstract

The aim of this work is to do a critical appreciation of the expert reports in judicial proceedings for alleged medical malpractice. The expert report should guide the judge and help to determine the limits of the physician’s or health professional’s responsibility. The expert must answer appropriately the questions discussed in the lawsuit, as well as bringing the elements that he or she might consider useful or necessary to aid the judicial decision. The theoretical section concerns the medical malpractice responsibility verification, the presupposed civil responsibility, the kinds of proof that can be produced in the process, what are the essential elements of the expert report, and which criteria that should be used by the expert to determine if the requirements of the duty of compensating are present. Then, using data obtained from judicial proceedings, the most important aspects in this kind of lawsuit are exposed, such as the incidence of types of damage alleged by the authors, the most prosecuted medical specialties, the average time between the beginning of the action and the judicial sentence, and the relevance of the expert reports in the observed judicial decisions. At the end, a critical analysis of the reports is accomplished, verifying if they contain all the recommended elements described in the theoretical part, criticizing the accomplishment of their function, and proposing instruments for their improvement.