Many people know the work of a forensic medical expert from films, news reports or individual cases. This may be why so many misconceptions surround it. I often encounter assumptions that are understandable, yet do not accurately reflect how an expert works or where the limits of the role lie. Below, I would like to clarify five common myths.
Myth 1: A forensic medical expert sides with the person who commissions their work.
This is perhaps the most common misconception. A forensic medical expert is neither an advocate nor an “opinion for hire”. Their task is to provide an independent medical opinion based on the materials available, the clinical records and current scientific knowledge. Their conclusions may support the commissioning party’s position, or they may not. A credible expert remains faithful to the evidence.
Myth 2: The expert decides who is at fault.
No. An expert does not pass judgement or determine criminal or civil liability. That is for the court or other competent authority. The expert addresses questions within their medical expertise: how an injury could have occurred, whether care met the applicable standard, what impairment resulted, or what medical consequences followed an event. The authority conducting the proceedings draws the legal conclusions.
Myth 3: A single clinical document can reveal the truth.
The reality is more complex. A discharge summary alone is rarely enough. In many cases, extensive clinical records must be reviewed, findings from different dates compared, the course of an injury reconstructed, and the available evidence assessed in light of medical knowledge. An expert assesses the whole documented history, rather than an isolated record.
Myth 4: If two experts disagree, one of them must be wrong.
Not necessarily. Experts may assess the same material differently, or further evidence may become available. The decisive issue is whether each conclusion follows logically from the documented findings, explains any uncertainty and can be independently scrutinised.
Myth 5: An expert can answer every question.
A responsible expert recognises the limits of their own competence. Where a case requires psychology, psychiatry, radiology, genetics or another specialist discipline, an appropriately qualified specialist may need to be consulted or appointed. Collaboration across specialties can improve the quality of the opinion.
What makes an medicolegal expert opinion credible?
A forensic medical expert answers medical questions on the basis of the material available. Establishing disputed facts and deciding legal liability are matters for the competent authority. A credible opinion states its evidential basis, reasoning and degree of certainty clearly, regardless of either party’s expectations.
