These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

185 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 19267689)

  • 1. Case for the establishment of a code of ethics to govern the frivolous use of forensic biomechanical testimony to resolve legal issues involving alleged work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
    Schneck DJ
    J Long Term Eff Med Implants; 2007; 17(4):343-57. PubMed ID: 19267689
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. The war against junk science: the use of expert panels in complex medical-legal scientific litigation.
    Price JM; Rosenberg ES
    Biomaterials; 1998 Aug; 19(16):1425-32. PubMed ID: 9794513
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Expert witness malfeasance: how should specialty societies respond?
    Feld AD; Carey WD
    Am J Gastroenterol; 2005 May; 100(5):991-5. PubMed ID: 15842567
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Science and persuasion: environmental disease in U.S. courts.
    Boden LI; Miyares JR; Ozonoff D
    Soc Sci Med; 1988; 27(10):1019-29. PubMed ID: 3059501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. The neglected intermediate premise in the forensic expert's testimony.
    Imwinkelried EJ
    Med Law; 1992; 11(3-4):229-37. PubMed ID: 1453893
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Admissibility of scientific evidence post-Daubert.
    Masten J; Strzelczyk JJ
    Health Phys; 2001 Dec; 81(6):678-82. PubMed ID: 11725886
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Proof of cancer causation and expert evidence: bringing science to the law and the law to science.
    Kune R; Kune G
    J Law Med; 2003 Aug; 11(1):112-21. PubMed ID: 14526731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Evolving legal standards for the admissibility of scientific evidence.
    Black B
    Science; 1988 Mar; 239(4847):1508-12. PubMed ID: 3281252
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (FMRI) and expert testimony.
    Kulich R; Maciewicz R; Scrivani SJ
    Pain Med; 2009 Mar; 10(2):373-80. PubMed ID: 19254335
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. [The new federal law in the light of forensic medical and legal proceedings].
    Kovalev AV; Kinle AF; Kadochnikov DS; Rakitin VA
    Sud Med Ekspert; 2016; 59(3):4-7. PubMed ID: 27529106
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Marijuana in the Workplace: Guidance for Occupational Health Professionals and Employers: Joint Guidance Statement of the American Association of Occupational Health Nurses and the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine.
    Phillips JA; Holland MG; Baldwin DD; Gifford-Meuleveld L; Mueller KL; Perkison B; Upfal M; Dreger M
    Workplace Health Saf; 2015 Apr; 63(4):139-64. PubMed ID: 25862727
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done?
    Kaufman HH
    Sci Justice; 2001; 41(1):7-20. PubMed ID: 11215302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. "Hired guns," "charlatans," and their "voodoo psychobabble": case law references to various forms of perceived bias among mental health expert witnesses.
    Edens JF; Smith ST; Magyar MS; Mullen K; Pitta A; Petrila J
    Psychol Serv; 2012 Aug; 9(3):259-271. PubMed ID: 22545822
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Forensic physicians and written evidence: witness statements v. expert reports.
    Choong KA; Barrett M
    J Forensic Leg Med; 2014 Feb; 22():93-8. PubMed ID: 24485431
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. How tobacco-friendly science escapes scrutiny in the courtroom.
    Friedman LC; Daynard RA; Banthin CN
    Am J Public Health; 2005; 95 Suppl 1():S16-20. PubMed ID: 16030332
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. The twilight zone between scientific certainty and legal sufficiency: should a jury determine the causation of schizophrenia?
    Goldstein RL
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1987; 15(1):95-104. PubMed ID: 3427234
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. The case against differential diagnosis: Daubert, medical causation testimony, and the scientific method.
    Hollingsworth JG; Lasker EG
    J Health Law; 2004; 37(1):85-111. PubMed ID: 15191237
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Using decision science to gain insight into ethical issues: an example involving thresholds in workers' compensation.
    Marpet MI; Primeaux P
    J Forensic Sci; 2001 Jul; 46(4):969-77. PubMed ID: 11451089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Need for expansion of forensic psychiatrists' role in sexual harassment cases.
    Feldman-Schorrig S
    Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 1995; 23(4):513-22. PubMed ID: 8639979
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Inconsistency in evidentiary standards for medical testimony: disorder in the courts.
    Kassirer JP; Cecil JS
    JAMA; 2002 Sep; 288(11):1382-7. PubMed ID: 12234232
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.