Aksu MN. Expert witness or “hired gun?”.
J Am Coll Dent. 1997;64:25–28.
Allen AM. The nurse and the deposition.
Orthop Nurs. 1987;6:50–51.
American Psychiatric Association resource document on peer review of expert
testimony. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1997;25:359–373.
Annas GJ. Medicine, death, and the criminal law.
N Engl J Med.
1995;333:527–530.
Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor–patient
relationship and malpractice: lessons from plaintiff depositions.
Arch Intern
Med. 1994;154:1365– 1370.
Berlin L. On being an expert witness.
AJR. 1997;168:607–610.
Bertin JE, Henifin MS. Science, law, and the search for truth in the courtroom:
lessons from Daubert v. Merrell Dow.
J Law Med Ethics. 1994;22:6–20.
Black B. Subpoenas and science—when lawyers force their way into the
laboratory. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:725–727.
Black E. What to expect at your deposition: a guide for physicians and health
care professionals. Pa Med. 1998;101:24.
Blake BL. Sgt. Friday, Dr. Welby, and the demand for patient information: what
to do when the police knock.
Mo Med. 1998;95:567–573.
Boyarsky S. Practical measures to reduce medical expert witness bias.
J
Forensic Sci. 1989;34:1259–1265.
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and
negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard Medical Practice
Study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324: 370–376.
Brent RL. Bringing scholarship to the courtroom: the Daubert decision and its
impact on the Teratology Society. Teratology. 1995;52:247–251.
Breyer S. The interdependence of science and law.
Science. 1998;280:537–538.
Carter R. The subpoena: coping with the anxiety and stress.
NY State Dent J.
1997;63:16–17.
Clifford R. Deposition abstracts provide insights into personal injury cases.
Natl Med Leg J. 1997;8:4.
Craft K, McBride A. Pharmacist–patient privilege, confidentiality, and legally-
mandated counseling: a legal review. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash).
1998;38:374–378.
Francisco CJ. Confidentiality, privilege, and release of medical records under a
subpoena duces tecum. Tex Med. 1991;87:34–35.
Gilbert JL, Whitworth RL, Ollanik SA, Hare FH Jr. Evidence destruction—legal
consequences of spoliation of records. Leg Med. 1994:181–200.
Hood RD. Some considerations for the expert witness in cases involving birth
defects. Reprod Toxicol. 1994;8:269–273.
Hupert N, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, Peterson LM. Processing the tort deterrent
signal: a qualitative study. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43:1–11.
Karp D. Deposition preparedness is essential to malpractice defense:
experienced defense attorneys offer advice for physicians.
Mich Med. 1994;93:27–29.
Kern SI. Responding to subpoenas and other demands for records and
testimony. NJ Med. 1996;93:85–88.
Licata LJ, Allison TH. Subpoenas for medical records served upon physicians.
Ohio Med. 1989;85:48–51.
Lindauer C. The video deposition—“you are the witness”.
Natl Med Leg J. 1990;1:7–8.
Localio AR, Lawthers AG, Brennan TA, et al. Relation between malpractice
claims and adverse events due to negligence: results of the Harvard Medical
Practice Study III. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:245–251.
Mandell MS. 10 legal safeguards for giving a deposition.
Nurs Life. 1988;8:50–51.
McAbee GN. Improper expert medical testimony: existing and proposed
mechanisms of oversight. J Leg Med. 1998;19: 257–272.
Meadow W, Lantos JD. Expert testimony, legal reasoning, and justice: the case
for adopting a data-based standard of care in allegations of medical negligence
in the NICU. Clin Perinatol. 1996;23:583–595.
Millock PJ. The Harvard Medical Malpractice Study and the malpractice debate
in New York State. Leg Med. 1991:111– 125.
Neoral L. Forensic medicine, its tasks and duties in medical malpractice and
medico–legal litigation. Med Law. 1998; 17:283–286.
Perry C. Admissibility and per se exclusion of hypnotically elicited recall in
American courts of law. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 1997;45:266–279.
Peters BM, Rosenbloom AG. The physician’s deposition: preparation and
testimony of the medical malpractice defendant.
Pediatr Emerg Care. 1987;3:194–201.
Plunkett LR. Anatomy of a dental malpractice case: subpoenas and
confidentiality. NY State Dent J. 1997;63:8–11.
Purnell L. What to do if called upon to testify.
Accid Emerg Nurs. 1995;3:19–21.
Rappeport JR. Effective courtroom testimony.
Psychiatr Q. 1992;63:303–317.
Reed ME. Daubert and the breast implant litigation: how is the judiciary
addressing the science? Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100:1322–1326.
Richards EP, Walter C. Science in the Supreme Court: round two.
IEEE Eng Med
Biol Mag. 1998;17:124–125.
Rosenbaum JT. Lessons from litigation over silicone breast implants: a call for
activism by scientists. Science. 1997;276:1524–1525.
Smith RH, Griffin M Jr. A keep-your-cool guide to giving a deposition.
RN. 1988;51:77–79.
Stinson V, Devenport JL, Cutler BL, Kravitz DA. How effective is the motion-to-
suppress safeguard? Judges’ perceptions of the suggestiveness and fairness of
biased lineup procedures. J Appl Psych. 1997;82:211–220.
Strasburger LH, Gutheil TG, Brodsky A. On wearing two hats: role conflict in
serving as both psychotherapist and expert witness.
Am J Psychiatry. 1997;154:448–456.
Tammelleo AD. Nurse asks “Should I get a lawyer”?
Regan Rep Nurs Law. 1994;35:1.
Ventura MJ. Are these nurses criminals?
RN. 1997;60:26–29.
Walter C, Richards EP. Keeping junk science out of the courtroom.
IEEE Eng
Med Biol Mag. 1998;17:78–81.
Walter C, Richards EP. The social responsibility of scientists: the scientific
impact statement. IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 1998;17:94–95.
Weirich AM. The deposition. Home Health Nurse. 1996;14: 876–877.
Zonana H. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals: a new standard for
scientific evidence in the courts?
Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law.
1994;22:309–325.
