Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Legal History Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law and Economics

Brooklyn Law School

China; medical negligence; litigation; selection bias; adversarial bias; judicial deference; courts; expert opinions; court appointed expert testimony; inquisitorial system; authentication; re-authentication; Supreme People's Court; documents of adjudication decisions; FA-MNA; MA-MNA; medical associations; forensic authentication agency; municipal; provincial; national; locality rule; common law; civil law; defendant; plaintiff; fault; causation; causal contribution; personal injury

Articles 1 - 1 of 1

Full-Text Articles in Legal History

How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding Dec 2019

How Much Do Expert Opinions Matter? An Empirical Investigation Of Selection Bias, Adversarial Bias, And Judicial Deference In Chinese Medical, Chunyan Ding

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

This article investigates the nature of the operation and the role of expert opinions in Chinese medical negligence litigation, drawing on content analysis of 3,619 medical negligence cases and an in-depth survey of judges with experience of adjudicating medical negligence cases. It offers three major findings: first, that both parties to medical negligence disputes show significant selection bias of medical opinions, as do courts when selecting court-appointed experts; second, expert opinions in medical negligence litigation demonstrate substantial adversarial bias; third, courts display very strong judicial deference to expert opinions in determining medical negligence liability. This article fills the methodological gap …