12 September 2024 Keith Rix 1138 Case Updates Known unknowns and the non-accidental injury hypothesis byKeith Rix Commentary The detail of this judgment will mainly be of interest to paediatricians, radiologists and clinical pharmacologists as it is another case in which there has been an issue as to the effects of proton pump inhibitors on bone growth. Its particular value is in its review of the case law from which is derived the requirement that experts address unknown causes in a case of possible non-accidental injury. There are some learning points of more general application arising out of the criticisms of the experts and particularly relevant to all single joint experts, not just in jointly appointed experts in the Family Court. To continue reading you must be an EWI member, become a member and access exclusive content. Already a member? Login More links Link to the Judgment Share Print Tags Non-accidental injury09. Being instructed as a Single Joint Expert13. Experts Discussions and Joint Statements15. Giving Oral Evidence16. Criticism and ComplaintsKnown unknownsMetaphyseal corner fracturesProtein pump inhibitors Related articles Andrew Cannestra v Mclaren Automotive Events Limited [2025] EWHC 1844 (KB) A fundamentally flawed report Podcast Episode 14: Reflections on the EWI Annual Conference 2025 A Day in the Life of a Town Planning Expert Witness Most unsatisfactory expert paediatric evidence Switch article Ten tips for acting as a Single Joint Expert Previous Article NHS Resolution announces new Clinical Negligence Claims Agreement 2024 Next Article Comments are only visible to subscribers.