Forensic appraisal opinions are legally binding.
Administrative Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China
Article 33 Evidence includes:
(1) Documentary evidence;
(2) Physical evidence;
(3) Audio-visual materials;
(4) Electronic data;
(5) Witness testimony;
< p>(6) Statements of the parties;(7) Appraisal opinions;
(8) Inspection records and on-site records.
Only when the above evidence is verified and verified by the court can it be used as the basis for determining the facts of the case.
Extended information:
Article 27 of the "Several Provisions on Evidence in Civil Litigation" of the Supreme People's Court stipulates that "if a party has objections to the appraisal opinion issued by the appraisal department entrusted by the people's court, he may apply for a new Appraisal, if evidence is presented to prove that one of the following circumstances exists, the people's court shall allow it:
1. The appraisal agency or appraisal personnel do not have relevant appraisal qualifications;
2. Appraisal procedures Serious violation of the law;
3. The appraisal conclusion is obviously insufficiently based;
4. Other circumstances that cannot be used as evidence after cross-examination.
Case: < /p>
The medical damage dispute between the 1-year-old premature baby Hanhan (pseudonym) and Xi'an Children's Hospital, which has been reported many times by Huashang Daily, has recently made new progress. The Xi'an Intermediate People's Court has made a second-instance ruling: Shaanxi Blueprint Judicial Appraisal. The medical error identification procedure issued by the center is illegal and cannot be used as a basis for finalizing the case. The first-instance judgment of the case was revoked and sent back to the Lianhu District People's Court for retrial.
The boy Hanhan was born prematurely in Shanxi in April 2016. , a doctor-patient dispute occurred with the hospital during treatment at Xi'an Children's Hospital. The family believed that the hospital was responsible for causing Hanhan's blindness, and sued the hospital to the Xi'an Lianhu District People's Court.
In 2017. On December 12, the People's Court of Lianhu District issued a civil judgment: There is no causal relationship between Hanhan's blindness and the diagnosis and treatment of Xi'an Children's Hospital, and the hospital did not "delay treatment or fail to inform Hanhan's parents of the examination results and treatment". "Recommendation" fact.
According to an investigation by Huashang Daily, the first-instance court's judgment that the hospital was not responsible was based on a judicial appraisal opinion that was full of loopholes. The first appraiser, Fan, practiced in two appraisal agencies at the same time. , a serious violation of relevant laws and regulations, and the signature of the appraiser was signed by someone else, which was also a violation. In the end, the Shaanxi Provincial Department of Justice dealt with the appraiser and the appraisal agency accordingly.
On April 10, 2018, Xi’an Intermediate People’s Court. The People's Court held a second instance of the case. During the trial, the appraiser was unable to answer many of the medical questions asked by the patient, and finally reluctantly stated that he did not have any clinical knowledge in ophthalmology or pediatrics.
Recently, Xi'an. The Municipal Intermediate People's Court made a second-instance ruling on the case: the new evidence submitted by the patient was sufficient to prove that the appraisal report procedure issued by the Shaanxi Blueprint Judicial Appraisal Center was illegal. Therefore, the appraisal opinion could not be used as the basis for finalizing the case, and the basic facts were unclear. . In accordance with relevant laws, the first-instance judgment of this case was revoked and the case file was sent back to the Lianhu District People's Court for retrial.
People's Daily Online-Xi'an 1-year-old's judicial appraisal opinion is full of doubts. The Intermediate People's Court ruled that the appraisal procedure was illegal