If an Expert in the role of single joint produces a report but omits
'all' your supporting evidence, would it be acceptable to raise this
with him as a concern (whist also copying in the other side)?  Consider
here that without the inclusion of this evidence the report is so flawed
that it would not be possible to attempt joint additional questions.

Surely, to not allow anyone within the legal process to raise serious
concerns that errors have been made would be like placing a gagging
order on someone?

I would really appreciate your views here.




-- 
alexb123

"alexb123"  wrote in message 
news:alexb123.2c3ee57@legalbanter.co.uk...
>
> If an Expert in the role of single joint produces a report but omits
> 'all' your supporting evidence, would it be acceptable to raise this
> with him as a concern (whist also copying in the other side)?  Consider
> here that without the inclusion of this evidence the report is so flawed
> that it would not be possible to attempt joint additional questions.
>
> Surely, to not allow anyone within the legal process to raise serious
> concerns that errors have been made would be like placing a gagging
> order on someone?
>
> I would really appreciate your views here.

I have acted as a SJE lots of times. The process involves the claimant and 
defendant getting together to agree the instructions to be put to the SJE, 
including the evidence he is to see. The SJE can always ask for more 
information if he needs it. Presumably, you made sure that 'your' evidence 
was included in what was sent to the SJE?

When you say that the SJE 'omitted' all your evidence, what do you mean by 
that? He should have given in his report a list of what information he 
relied on. Are you saying that he looked at 'your' evidence and did not 
think it important? If so, that's his judgement call, I'm afraid.  If, on 
the other hand, you think that he may have lost one of the bundles of 
evidence, that should be apparent from the list in the report or from 
further questions that you can put to him. He would have an obligation to 
the court to reconsider his report in those circumstances.

Forgive me, but are you an expert yourself in the field that the SJE is 
reporting on in this case? If not, I fail to see how you can say his report 
is flawed. One of the disadvantages of having a SJE is that he may make 
mistakes, the risk of which is somewhat lessened if there are two experts. 
However, for you as a non-expert to say that a report is 'so flawed that it 
would not be possible to attempt ... additional questions' is really quite 
difficult for you to sustain and convince a judge of. So, one of the things 
you are going to have to do is find your own expert to say that the SJE's 
report is a *complete* load of baloney, not just that he disagrees with it, 
but that the SJE is completely wrong (as you say) and has missed the 
importance of a large chunk of evidence.

I would just add that when I act as SJE I am even more careful than normal 
to make sure that I consider everything as fairly and fully as possible, and 
to double-check everything, specifically because I know that there is no 
other expert there to pull me up if I have made a mistake.

alexb123 wrote:
> If an Expert in the role of single joint produces a report but omits
> 'all' your supporting evidence, would it be acceptable to raise this
> with him as a concern (whist also copying in the other side)?
> Consider here that without the inclusion of this evidence the report
> is so flawed that it would not be possible to attempt joint
> additional questions.
>
> Surely, to not allow anyone within the legal process to raise serious
> concerns that errors have been made would be like placing a gagging
> order on someone?
>
> I would really appreciate your views here.
>

Didn't this just get discussed under "Medical Protection Society" ?