[Medical expert opinion--credibility, ethics, remuneration]

Israeli Law requires a Personal Injury Claim to be supported by an Expert Medical Opinion. Such evidence provides the Court with information essential for the evaluation of scientific material, which is beyond the Court's "judicial knowledge". Incongruent Expert Opinions are not necessarily the result of deceit. Experts are entitled to differences in their respective evaluation and interpretation of data and conflicting medical opinions may be legitimate. The Court's duty and prerogative is to select the "legally correct" opinion. The sole tool at the Court's disposal is precise and logical thinking, aided by principles set by the U.S. Supreme Court for the evaluation of scientific evidence, and adopted by the Israeli Court. The choice of the "correct" opinion centers on it's objectivity. A court-appointed expert is not necessarily an effective solution. Remuneration of the expert by the interested party increases the level of mistrust. The difficult questions concerning the credibility of an opinion arise as the result of insufficient specific expertise of the witness, presentation by a pretender to expertise or plain misrepresentation of data, excerpts of literature etc. Such transgressions are best exposed by the opposing party's expert and attorney. The court has effective means for the control of such behavior. The fraudulent expert witness is neither immune to criminal prosecution, nor to civil suit. IMA's Code of Ethics for Experts is adequate. Expert's fees should be consistent with the effort involved, as well as with the expert's rank and experience. Any linkage of fees to the outcome of the procedure should be prohibited, as well as the intervention of "contractors". Attempts to limit experts' fees, may result in the abstention of the most knowledgeable specialists from such duties. The blame for a false opinion does not lie with the paying party, it is mostly the witness who is responsible.