Expert witness billing practices revisited: a pilot study of further data.
This pilot study follows up an earlier study of the strategies and rationales by which psychiatric expert witnesses bill for their time on a case. Questionnaires were answered by participants at a workshop at the Annual Meeting of the American Academy of Psychiatry and Law (AAPL). In this follow-up, additional novel billing issues were addressed, some subtler than in the original study. In addition, responses to one question supported the previous finding that experts billed more reasonably when a case was simple. Additional issues included use of fee agreements and returning an unpaid-for case. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Gutheil
T G
TG
Program in Psychiatry and the Law, Masschusetts Mental Health Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, USA.
Commons
M L
ML
Miller
P M
PM
D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D003284:Contract Services / Q000191:economics; D003657:Decision Making; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005104:Expert Testimony / Q000191:economics* / Q000592:standards; D005249:Fees and Charges / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000191:economics* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D007999:Library Services / Q000191:economics; D010865:Pilot Projects; D020399:Practice Management / Q000191:economics* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014481:United States