Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
January 17, 1920


JAMA. 1920;74(3):166-168. doi:10.1001/jama.1920.02620030022009

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.


Surprise is often expressed concerning inharmonious medical expert testimony. Doubtless dishonest medical evidence is sometimes heard, but most medical opinions expressed in court are honest, and divergent views between witnesses are dependent on varying degrees of knowledge, and personal experience. The human body and its diseases, possessing but little uniformity, can be variably interpreted by a plurality of honest and intelligent observers, especially in borderland cases in which demarcation lines are vague and indistinct.

Long experience in examining plaintiffs for injury cases inevitably produces skepticism and demands for objective indications, as a high percentage of such cases is, more or less, based on fraudulent claims, fostered and nourished by unprincipled attorneys, unwise friends, and the general desire to extract money from wealthy corporations. Employees have themselves to blame, therefore, for having built a structure inimical to their own interests, while employers may be congratulated on a more benevolent attitude toward

First Page Preview View Large
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview