|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: GEN: Expert Witnesses - interestingFrom: DoctorJoe@aol.comWed May 24 20:50:11 2006
In a message dated 5/24/06 5:07:45 PM, zygote@icsi.net writes:
> There should not hato be an opinion on this issue. It is unethical for an But remember the two-pronged concept of "due process" - notice and an opportunity to be heard. This would be a concept of notice. If an expert has no notice that what he's doing violates some ethical or legal rule or regulation or opinion, then how can you expect him to grok it out of thin air? The concept of contingency payment is not a priori unethical. The original concept, the aid of the poor client, is certainly altruistic. I don't see on the face of it why that wouldn't apply as much to an expert or a consultant as it would to the legal counsel. If the consultant/expert really believed in his position and was in a position to help a disadvantaged plaintiff (OR defendant), why shouldn't he do it on a contingent basis, if that helped the poor client? At least one could so argue. So if some authority has not specifically condemned contingent payment of consultants, we can't crucify the consultants for it "just because" -- they must have had SOME type of warning from an authoritative society/licensing/legal source. Hence my question/post originally Joe P.
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Wed Jul 2 04:43:47 2008 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.