a legal expert challenged by the Grenoble Court of Appeal

It is a decision that should cause a stir in the microcosm of legal experts. In a judgment of July 26, consulted by The worldthe Grenoble Court of Appeal has challenged an expert in the civil aspect of the sprawling and highly publicized “doctor V. case”, this Grenoble orthopedic surgeon indicted in 2020 for “injury and manslaughter”. According to the public prosecutor of Grenoble, Eric Vaillant, “to date, the number of potential victims referred to in the investigation procedure is around 90” on the penal side: these are former patients of the practitioner who suffered from serious complications after operations.

Like some fifteen civil plaintiffs, M^me I. V., operated ” three times “ of the back by doctor V., had requested the recusal of the expert appointed by the judge in chambers: doctor Luc Chadan, specialist in neurosurgery and spine surgery. In December 2021, the judge in charge of monitoring the expertise operations had dismissed this ex-patient and other complainants who denounced a conflict of interest.

Read also Article reserved for our subscribers In Grenoble, the operating methods of doctor V. in question

However, the Grenoble Court of Appeal finally granted Mr.^me IV and to the complainants. She has ” dump “ Doctor Chadan “of the mission of expertise entrusted to it” and deprived him of fees for the expertise already started.

“Legitimate doubt”

In its judgment, the court concludes that“it is established by the pieces produced” that “Doctor V., doctor implicated” by the plaintiffs, and “Doctor Chadan are both members of the French Society of Spinal Surgery [SFCR, qui compte 450 membres] and that within this learned society they participate in the same “outpatient surgery” working group, which has twenty members”. The Grenoble Court of Appeal observes that, “however”, “Doctor Chadan did not report this common membership to the judge in charge of the control of the expertise operations”.

In addition, the court recalls that” it results “ of the “parts produced” by M^me IV and the other plaintiffs that “Doctor V.., in connection with the criminal proceedings against him…, requested the replacement of the three experts appointed by the examining magistrate by a doctor, member like him of the SFCR, which was refused to him”.

She adds that, “ in the context of the dispute between him and one of his former patients”Dr V. “has had opinions drawn up in his favor by four doctors who, like him, belong to the “outpatient surgery” working group of the SFCR”of which the “group coordinator”.

You have 53.17% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.