[从法律角度来看，专家意见相互矛盾]。

Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung Pub Date : 1996-11-01

F J Pelz

{"title":"[从法律角度来看，专家意见相互矛盾]。","authors":"F J Pelz","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Medical lability actions do rarely without expert assessment. The basic rule of free evidence recognition applies for the evaluation of conflicting expert assessments which forces the judge to examine closely. It is reported about formal mistakes of an expert assessment and the appropriate handling of different expert assessments.","PeriodicalId":23879,"journal":{"name":"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1996-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Conflicting expert opinions from the legal viewpoint].\",\"authors\":\"F J Pelz\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Medical lability actions do rarely without expert assessment. The basic rule of free evidence recognition applies for the evaluation of conflicting expert assessments which forces the judge to examine closely. It is reported about formal mistakes of an expert assessment and the appropriate handling of different expert assessments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":23879,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1996-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

医疗责任行动很少没有专家评估。自由证据承认的基本规则适用于鉴定相互矛盾的专家鉴定，迫使法官进行密切审查。报告了专家评估的正式错误和不同专家评估的适当处理。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

[Conflicting expert opinions from the legal viewpoint].

Medical lability actions do rarely without expert assessment. The basic rule of free evidence recognition applies for the evaluation of conflicting expert assessments which forces the judge to examine closely. It is reported about formal mistakes of an expert assessment and the appropriate handling of different expert assessments.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Zeitschrift fur arztliche Fortbildung

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊最新文献

[Transfusion-hemosiderosis]. [Retroperitoneal fibrosis]. [Abdominal pain]. [Healthy life style. Perspectives of prevention in modern society]. [General practice quality circles in the large city. Participation by Hamburg general physicians].