O recurso à ciência no processo civil: uma análise da racionalidade da prova pericial

Abstract

The present work aims to analyze the rationality of expert evidence in judicial decisions for the granting of cancer drugs. To do so, an analysis of the Daubert trilogy will be made, analyzing the evolution of US jurisprudence in the face of judicial control of expert evidence. It is a qualitative research in which three expert reports were analyzed and having as theoretical framework the North American jurisprudential evolution (Daaubert trilogy). The choice of the object of research was due to the author 's practice with processes of this nature, which aroused interest in the study of the rationality of expert evidence. In addition will be approached the medical perspective, as well as the legal analysis of expert medical reports.We criticize, in this work, the absence of a medical conceptual terminological rigor in the expert reports, as well as the lack of jurisdictional control in the face of the expert. What is sought is a rational expert report and a judge who does not accept as absolute all the expert's conclusions, only to objectify a just, rational and effective judicial protection.