On Claiming Medical Expertise in Malpractice Cases (and Beyond): Mapping Legal, Medical and Ethical Domains
Presenter:
Patrick Garon-Sayegh
Assistant Professor
Université de Montréal Faculty of Law
Abstract: This article examines the kinds of arguments that can be made in debates regarding whether or not an expert is properly qualified to critique the work or opinions of another expert. Since these debates routinely occur in both legal and political arenas, a more fine-tuned sense of their argumentative dynamics can be fruitful for resolving them. The article is built around the analysis of a decision which concerned the admissibility of a physician’s testimony on the medical standard of care in a malpractice case. A detailed parsing of the arguments in this decision lays the groundwork for a theoretical discussion, in which broader themes relating to experts’ qualifications are drawn out. The discussion insists on two elements, present in the decision, which can serve to buttress an expert’s claim to being properly qualified: community belonging and personal character.
Patrick Garon-Sayegh is an Assistant Professor in the Faculty of Law at the Université de Montréal, where he specializes in the law of evidence, with particular focus on expert testimony in medical malpractice cases. His interdisciplinary research lies at the intersection of philosophy of science, philosophy of law, and rhetoric. Drawing on these fields and his experiences in legal practice, he brings a distinctive analytical approach to questions of legal reasoning and persuasion, evidentiary standards, and the use of scientific reasoning in legal decision-making. His current research focuses on understanding how physicians' clinical decisions are evaluated in malpractice cases, demonstrating how many of these decisions cannot be reduced to purely scientific or technical questions, but rather that they are hybrid in nature, i.e. they have a scientific-technical as well as a legal-moral dimension. Through this research, he aims to develop a framework for analyzing such hybrid decisions while preserving their complex, multifaceted nature. Prior to joining academia, he practiced as a litigator in a national firm handling complex environmental and construction cases. He completed his doctorate in law at the University of Toronto, where his research examined the evidentiary challenges of proving medical malpractice through expert testimony.
Join Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/99957887552?pwd=TavBkYTf5e9saU8T2EzIkJY6AeVmx1.1
Meeting ID: 999 5788 7552
Passcode: 620627
