"The differences between the scientific and legal processes lead to misunderstandings on both sides, and this editorial reflects our recent frustrations over the way publications have been used. The differences have surfaced in the understanding of peer review but probably lie deeper."
Workers' Compensation hearing officials have become the gatekeepers to evaluate what is reliable evidence for admission. Their dual role of both gatekeeper and fact-finder complicates the even handiness of the judicial process further as the Daubert issues are adjudicated.
The dilatory process invoked to sort this material strains judicial economy, and creates yet another level of delay to what was envisioned as a summary and remedial process. This only further the highlights the need to review the entire workers' compensation system and determine if it can at all function as intended by its crafters a century ago.
Related articles
