Expert Reports

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Rocket clouds
Expert Reports by Mind Map: Expert Reports

1. Why do we need expert reports in TS-CIC

1.1. Diagnostic clarification

1.2. Causation

1.3. Exacerbation

1.4. Degree of injury/harm

1.5. Disability

1.5.1. Degree

1.5.1.1. How bad is it

1.5.1.2. What's impaired

1.5.1.3. To what extent

1.5.1.4. How seriously impaired

1.5.1.4.1. Duration

1.5.1.4.2. Frequency

1.5.2. Nature

1.5.2.1. The features of it

1.5.2.2. Aggravating factors

1.5.2.3. Relieving factors

1.5.2.4. Duration

1.5.2.5. Frequency

1.5.2.6. Pattern

1.6. Sex abuse cases

1.7. New Idea

1.8. New Idea

2. Pitfalls

2.1. Wrong

2.1.1. Expert

2.1.2. Instructions

2.2. The useless report or expert!

2.3. No clearer for expert report, what next?

2.4. Expert strays unreasonably outside of boundaries of instructions

2.5. Expert exceeds competence

2.6. Inferences being proffered as fact.

2.7. Speculation being offered as fact

2.8. All that glitters..

3. Who is an expert?

3.1. The Expert

3.1.1. Factors that suggest reliability

3.1.2. Credibility

3.1.2.1. General

3.1.2.1.1. Length of experience

3.1.2.1.2. Depth of experience

3.1.2.1.3. Positions held

3.1.2.1.4. Practising or not

3.1.2.2. Specific

3.1.2.2.1. Qualifications

3.1.2.2.2. History of similar assessments

3.1.2.2.3. Special knowledge in the field

3.1.2.2.4. Direct research in the topic area

3.2. Who is an expert for TS-CIC?

3.2.1. Definitions?

3.3. Types of expert

3.3.1. Professional witness

3.3.2. Expert Witness

4. Which Expert

5. Process

5.1. How is the report obtained?

5.1.1. Appellant

5.1.1.1. GP Notes

5.1.1.2. Private report

5.1.1.3. Previous court matter

5.1.2. CICA requests

5.1.3. CICA and TS-CIC request

5.2. Oral evidence of expert

5.2.1. Ask short open questions as far as possible.

5.2.2. Use short open probes

5.2.3. Create the open

5.2.4. Manage the expert

5.2.4.1. Interrupt politely where they go on a frolick of their own.

6. Standards

6.1. Guidance

6.1.1. GMC

6.1.2. HMCTS

6.1.2.1. Sentencing

6.2. Poor reports

6.2.1. What can be done?

6.2.2. What is done?

6.3. Good reports

6.3.1. How do we know they're good?

6.3.2. What do we do with them?

7. Law

7.1. Common law

7.1.1. Ikarian reefer 1993

7.1.2. Anglo Group plc v Winther Brown & Co. Ltd.2000

7.1.3. Jones v Kaney 2010

7.2. Regulation

7.2.1. Civ/Fam/Crim Proc Rules

7.2.2. GMC

8. Diagnosis

9. Disability

9.1. Mental

9.2. Physical

10. Overview of Reports

10.1. Readability

10.1.1. Ease of reading

10.1.1.1. Sentences not complicated

10.1.1.2. Correct punctuation and spelling

10.1.1.3. Good grammar

10.1.2. Ease of understanding

10.1.2.1. Minimal use of jargon

10.1.2.2. If jargon it is explained with a footnote

10.2. Structure

10.2.1. Facts

10.2.1.1. Obtained by author

10.2.1.1.1. Observed

10.2.1.1.2. What's measured

10.2.1.1.3. Researched

10.2.1.1.4. Calculated

10.2.1.2. Referenced literature

10.2.1.3. Test results

10.2.1.4. Assumed facts

10.2.1.5. Facts in documents

10.2.1.6. Facts from other persons

10.2.1.6.1. Sources of information itemised and declared

10.2.1.6.2. Fact clearly separated from opinion

10.2.2. Organised

10.2.2.1. Well formatted

10.2.2.1.1. Paragraph/Line numbered

10.2.2.1.2. Enough white space to make for easy reading

10.2.2.2. Table of contents

10.3. Content

10.3.1. Main issues are covered

10.3.2. All instructions covered

10.3.3. Internally cross referenced

10.4. What's done with the evidence

10.4.1. Corroborated?

10.4.1.1. Compared and contrasted

10.4.2. Evaluated?

10.4.2.1. How?

10.4.2.2. What methods?

10.4.3. Reasoned upon

10.4.3.1. The quality of logic used

10.4.3.2. Weighing up alternative diagnoses or possibilities

10.5. Conclusions

10.5.1. Instructions covered in order received

10.5.2. Diagnostic criteria declared

10.5.3. Evidence used is cross referenced

10.5.4. Evidence of reasoning on the diagnostic criteria

10.5.5. Clear evidence-based evaluation of disability

11. Evaluating reports

11.1. Reasoning

11.1.1. From the facts

11.1.2. Evidence

11.1.3. From criteria

11.1.4. Weighing any discrepancies

11.1.5. Weighing strengths and weaknesses

11.1.6. Dealing squarely with complexity

11.2. Credibility

11.2.1. Duration of examination/interview

11.3. Reliability

11.3.1. Quality of examination and findings

11.3.1.1. Evidence that it was actually done.

11.3.1.2. Method of interview

11.3.1.2.1. Live

11.3.1.2.2. Telephone

11.3.1.2.3. Chat room

11.3.1.3. Documentation of findings

11.3.2. Amount of time spent with appellant

11.4. Does the report smell like the standards have been applied?

12. Using the report

12.1. Does it address the instructions?

12.2. Is it reliable?

12.3. How confident do I feel about it?

12.4. What if it isn't useable

13. Reference

14. HELP. click this -->