Opinions and Testimony of Expert Witnesses and Independent Medical Evaluators

Outcome effects, moral luck and the hindsight bias

In a series of ten preregistered experiments (N = 2043), we investigate the effect of outcome valence on judgments of probability, negligence, and culpability - a phenomenon sometimes labelled moral (and legal) luck. We found that harmful outcomes, when contrasted with neutral outcomes, lead to an increased perceived probability of harm ex post, and consequently, to a greater attribution of negligence and culpability. Rather than simply postulating hindsight bias (as is common), we employ a variety of empirical means to demonstrate that the outcome-driven asymmetry across perceived probabilities constitutes a systematic cognitive distortion. We then explore three distinct strategies to alleviate the hindsight bias and its downstream effects on mens rea and culpability ascriptions. Not all strategies are successful, but some prove very promising. They should, we argue, be considered in criminal jurisprudence, where distortions due to the hindsight bias are likely considerable and deeply disconcerting.

The Physician as Expert Witness

Any physician who has authored an Independent Medical Evaluation or medical record review can and should anticipate being called as an expert witness (EW). Litigants rely on EW testimony in most civil cases. The most common areas in which EWs participate and provide opinions and testimony are workers' compensation, personal injury, and medical malpractice. This report will become part of the discovery process, the process by which a party to a lawsuit can obtain information from another party or other entities involved in the lawsuit.