4 ms·

"I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Eithe

"I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Either you have the expertise to make such judgments, or you don't, and shouldn't try to pass off legal opinions you can't legally make with a disclaimer, as if that absolves everything. I can fully understand someone getting irritated at this and trying to go one step further.

squeaky-clean 5y ago
Did you read the bit where 80% of employed engineers in North Carolina don't have an engineering license, but have an industry exemption from state law? He was legally an engineer for decades up until his retirement. So imagine if 80% of doctors didn't have some sort of license allowing them to speak about their practice. > In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.” > By some estimates, 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. By the Board’s interpretation, most engineers in North Carolina could not legally comment publicly on engineering.
- dasudasu 5y ago
  His exemption makes his field of practice much more limited than a fully licensed engineer and didn't seem to cover making legal advice in court. Court experts should indeed be held to high standards. At this point, being called an engineer is just semantics. In many other locales, someone not licensed is not even allowed to call themselves that, regardless of their degrees.
  - resoluteteeth 5y ago
    > In many other locales, someone not licensed is not even allowed to call themselves that, regardless of their degrees But as the grandparent comment you responded to explained, he isn't calling himself that, because he declared that he wasn't a licensed engineer. Shouldn't the court be able to decide whether to accept him as an expert witness?
- mcguire 5y ago
  § 89C-25. Limitations on application of Chapter. (https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_89C.html https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter...) "(4) Engaging in engineering or land surveying as an employee or assistant under the responsible charge of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor." is, I think, the only one to apply.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nomdep 5y ago
I am not a lawyer but…
xdmr 5y ago
> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Yeah, it sounds like something the opposition's lawyer should try to prevent being accepted as expert witness testimony. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen "My Cousin Vinny" so I understand that there are procedures for doing this. On the other hand, maybe the opposition's lawyer wasn't able to prevent the witness from being accepted as an expert because the witness actually was an expert and ought to have been accepted as an expert, in spite of not being a doctor. Maybe she was a professor of pharmacology or something. Thus she could justifiably claim to say with expertise "X drug would be very likely to kill a patient of type T and should not be prescribed to them." But this sounds a lot like medical advice (I mean, a person with condition T who heard the testimony might decide not to take drug X), even though it isn't. It's expert witness testimony. We try to prevent people from giving medical advice without a license because medical advice tends to be given in private to people who tend to trust it implictly and will thus suffer the consequences of it being dangerously wrong. When medical advice is given in public in front of a hostile enemy lawyer, this is less of a concern.
jmholla 5y ago
> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." On a side note, I think you'd be sad to learn how common it is for this to apply to testifying coroners.

squeaky-clean 5y ago

Did you read the bit where 80% of employed engineers in North Carolina don't have an engineering license, but have an industry exemption from state law? He was legally an engineer for decades up until his retirement. So imagine if 80% of doctors didn't have some sort of license allowing them to speak about their practice. > In fact, like the majority of engineers nationwide, Wayne was not required to get a license since he worked for a company under the state’s “industrial exception.” > By some estimates, 80% of engineers nationwide work legally without a license. By the Board’s interpretation, most engineers in North Carolina could not legally comment publicly on engineering.

dasudasu 5y ago
His exemption makes his field of practice much more limited than a fully licensed engineer and didn't seem to cover making legal advice in court. Court experts should indeed be held to high standards. At this point, being called an engineer is just semantics. In many other locales, someone not licensed is not even allowed to call themselves that, regardless of their degrees.
- resoluteteeth 5y ago
  > In many other locales, someone not licensed is not even allowed to call themselves that, regardless of their degrees But as the grandparent comment you responded to explained, he isn't calling himself that, because he declared that he wasn't a licensed engineer. Shouldn't the court be able to decide whether to accept him as an expert witness?
mcguire 5y ago
§ 89C-25. Limitations on application of Chapter. (https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter/Chapter_89C.html https://ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/HTML/ByChapter...) "(4) Engaging in engineering or land surveying as an employee or assistant under the responsible charge of a professional engineer or professional land surveyor." is, I think, the only one to apply.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nomdep 5y ago

I am not a lawyer but…

xdmr 5y ago

> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." It doesn't sound that great either way. Yeah, it sounds like something the opposition's lawyer should try to prevent being accepted as expert witness testimony. I'm not a lawyer, but I have seen "My Cousin Vinny" so I understand that there are procedures for doing this. On the other hand, maybe the opposition's lawyer wasn't able to prevent the witness from being accepted as an expert because the witness actually was an expert and ought to have been accepted as an expert, in spite of not being a doctor. Maybe she was a professor of pharmacology or something. Thus she could justifiably claim to say with expertise "X drug would be very likely to kill a patient of type T and should not be prescribed to them." But this sounds a lot like medical advice (I mean, a person with condition T who heard the testimony might decide not to take drug X), even though it isn't. It's expert witness testimony. We try to prevent people from giving medical advice without a license because medical advice tends to be given in private to people who tend to trust it implictly and will thus suffer the consequences of it being dangerously wrong. When medical advice is given in public in front of a hostile enemy lawyer, this is less of a concern.

jmholla 5y ago

> "I'm not a medical doctor, but here is a bunch of medical advice that should be used to prosecute this defendant." On a side note, I think you'd be sad to learn how common it is for this to apply to testifying coroners.