Tremfya Prescribing Information

Title: Chapter 491. Scope for Evidence from Non-Party Experts

Date: April 1, 1999

Dr. Tresco is entitled to the opinions of other experts with regard to a defendant who has not formally entered an appearance. Dr. Tresco's opinions, however, are not entitled to equal weight with those of the opposing party. The test is whether Dr. Tresco's conclusions are "convincing and cogent" and whether the weight of other expert testimony permits different inferences from Dr. Tresco's conclusions. Dr. Tresco's conclusions are not merely the product of emotion, deduction, conjecture, or mere possibility; rather, the medical community has given them great weight, especially in light of his background and experience in internal medicine and allergy therapy.

It is Dr. Tresco's burden to demonstrate to the court that his opinion is "convincing and cogent", and that a layman would be justified in relying on such an opinion. Although the Court notes that it considers whether or not the evidence and opinions of the experts is good faith, based upon his scientific training, the weight of this testimony should only be assessed by the court.

Article 24, section 206, of the South African Constitution provides that the profession shall be regarded as the public's best forum. It is appropriate that patients are allowed to give medical testimony about their own health, by expert doctors.

It is only fair to allow the experts giving opinions to show that they are not using the court's forum improperly. The professional immunity should not apply to those expert persons providing the opinion. While many of Dr. Tresco's opinions are valid, others are not. Like any other expert, he can, and may, choose to, provide a layman with an opinion. Although the Court has no power to require evidence, and he must "examine the evidence and facts, and be guided by the dictates of science", particularly in his field of expertise, the Court does not absolve him of the responsibility of testifying in a rational and coherent manner.

Testimony by "expert witnesses is presumed to be reliable". This presumption is subject to the same rigorous standard as any other fact, or conclusion, that is to be drawn from the evidence and found to be reasonable and credible.