[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, when multiple appraisal conclusions conflict with each other, the court does not adopt the latest one or let the parties choose one, but reviews all the evidence of the case comprehensively: first, whether the institutions and personnel have the statutory qualifications; second, whether the appraisal procedures are legal and whether the samples have been cross-examined by both parties; third, whether the analysis basis is sufficient and whether it conforms to the clinical treatment norms; fourth, whether there is new evidence that needs to be considered. To apply for a re-appraisal, it must meet statutory circumstances such as a lack of qualifications, serious violations of procedures, or opinions that are obviously based on insufficient evidence. Simply not accepting the conclusion is not enough to initiate the process. Action guidance: Compare the differences of multiple opinions item by item, raise written objections around qualifications, procedures, and basis, and, if necessary, apply for the appraiser to testify in court. For more details, please refer to the following link:Legal services for personal injury and medical disputes.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

The scenario of multiple appraisal conclusions existing simultaneously is becoming increasingly common: the patient's side commissions an appraisal before litigation, and the court also commissions one during the litigation, with the conclusions being contradictory; new medical records or new autopsy opinions emerge during the interval between the two appraisals; medical accident technical appraisals and judicial appraisals run in parallel, with one recognizing fault and the other not; and the defendant, who disagrees with the conclusions unfavorable to them, commissions another appraisal agency. When the parties hold several appraisal documents with conflicting conclusions, the most common question they ask is "which one should we listen to?" In fact, the number of conclusions itself does not indicate the problem. The qualifications, procedures, and basis of each opinion determine their weight. For specific cross-examination ideas, please refer to the following article:\nMedical appraisal dispute resolution services.

II. Key points of contention

There are four key points of controversy. Firstly, the rules of admissibility: the court reviews each opinion individually, and only those that meet the requirements of qualification and procedure and are based on sufficient evidence can be used as the basis for the final judgment, with no necessary connection to the commissioning party or the time of issuance. Secondly, the conditions for re-appraisal: it must meet the statutory circumstances such as the appraisal institution or personnel lacking qualifications, serious procedural violations, or obvious insufficient evidence. The court is very strict in reviewing requests for re-appraisal. Thirdly, the impact of new evidence: if new materials such as medical records and autopsy reports that were not submitted before appear, the reference value of the later opinion is usually higher. Fourthly, the expert's appearance in court: if there are major disputes over the conclusion, the parties have the right to request the expert to appear in court for questioning. Vague responses will weaken the probative force of the opinion.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The medical malpractice case handled by Attorney Yu Dawei demonstrated how the court weighs conflicting claims when multiple parties are involved. On May 16, 2024, Zhao Dashan, an elderly patient, went home after undergoing a gastroscopic biopsy at A City Tumor Hospital. He later vomited blood and was rushed to B County People's Hospital for emergency treatment, before being transferred to the First Affiliated Hospital of C Medical University, where he died on May 18. The family entrusted Attorney Yu Dawei to sue the three hospitals. According to the forensic appraisal commissioned by the court, B County People's Hospital was found to bear 50% responsibility for the "loss of survival opportunity" caused by its negligence, while the other two hospitals were found not liable. The defendant B County People's Hospital raised multiple objections to the appraisal, including questioning the appraisal institution's qualifications in forensic pathology, accusing the appraisal of illegally defining "loss of survival opportunity," criticizing the lack of expert information and procedural irregularities, and demanding a reappraisal in an attempt to replace the existing conclusion with a different one. The appraisal institution responded point by point: the institution holds qualifications in forensic clinical appraisal (medical malpractice appraisal), and "loss of survival opportunity" is classified as a procedural damage listed in the "Guidelines for Forensic Appraisal of Medical Malpractice," with qualified appraisers and legally compliant procedures. After review, the court ruled that the grounds for a reappraisal did not meet legal requirements, rejected the request, and adopted the original appraisal opinion, ordering the hospital to compensate according to a 50% liability ratio. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that one's own opinions, procedures, and evidence can withstand detailed cross-examination rather than relying on the hope of "turning the tables through another appraisal." The case was handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Yu DayiThe lawyer (practice certificate number: 11101201010292290, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The legal basis includes the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings" (amended on December 25, 2019 and implemented on May 1, 2020) regarding the provisions on expert witnesses testifying in court, reviewing and re-appraising appraisal opinions; the "General Procedures for Forensic Appraisal" (Decree No. 132 of the Ministry of Justice, implemented on May 1, 2016) regarding the qualifications of appraisal institutions, the avoidance of appraisers and the requirements for appraisal opinions; the "Regulations on the Prevention and Handling of Medical Disputes" (Decree No. 701 of the State Council, implemented on October 1, 2018) regarding the procedures for appraising medical damages; and Article 1228 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" (implemented on January 1, 2021) regarding the liability for medical damage caused by negligence. Action list: 1. Compare multiple appraisal opinions side by side to identify differences in conclusions and grounds; 2. Verify the qualifications of appraisal institutions, the signatures of appraisers, and the lists of examination materials for each opinion; 3. Submit written objections within the legal time limit regarding issues in the appraisal opinions, focusing on qualifications, procedures, and grounds for evidence; 4. Request the appraiser to appear in court for questioning in cases of major disputes; 5. Apply for a re-appraisal in accordance with the law if there is new evidence or legal circumstances, as detailed in the regulations.Legal services for personal injury and medical disputes.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

When there are multiple conclusions, the most worrying thing is two kinds of mindsets: one is to believe that the later conclusion is naturally more authoritative, and blindly apply for a re-appraisal, only to be rejected because it does not meet the statutory requirements, wasting both money and time; the other is to fixate on the conclusion that is favorable to oneself and ignore the procedural flaws of the other conclusion. The rational approach is to "examine" each conclusion one by one, focusing on the flaws in the qualifications, procedures, and basis of the opposing conclusion, while consolidating the integrity of one's own conclusion. In the judicial practice of the Beijing area, the court strictly reviews requests for duplicate appraisals. Instead of repeatedly requesting a re-appraisal, it is better to apply for the appraiser to appear in court to clarify the issues, and if necessary, consult with a lawyer.Beijing Henglu Law FirmProfessional lawyers develop cross-examination strategies.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: If the conclusions of two appraisals are different, is the latter one more effective?

No. Which one the court accepts depends on whether the qualifications, procedures, and evidence can withstand scrutiny, and there is no necessary connection with the order of their production. A document that follows procedural norms, whose evidence has undergone cross-examination, and whose basis is sufficient, even if it was produced first, may still be accepted. A document that has issues with lacking qualifications, procedural violations, or insufficient evidence, even if it was produced later, may not be accepted. If the parties have objections to either document, they can raise them according to the law. Ultimately, the court will evaluate the evidence based on the entire case, and the court's review and determination shall prevail in each specific case.

Q2: If you have any objections to the appraisal conclusion, what materials should you prepare?

The materials shall be organized around four aspects: First, the full texts of all opinions and the list of inspection materials, which are used to compare the differences between the conclusions and the basis; Second, the institutional qualification documents, including the judicial appraisal license, the business scope, and the appraiser's practice certificate; Third, the evidence of procedural defects, such as the inspection materials not being subject to cross-examination, the appraiser not signing the report, and the lack of a hearing procedure; Fourth, new evidence or counter-evidence materials, such as supplementary medical records, autopsy reports, and authoritative literature. Objections should be raised in writing within the statutory time limit and accompanied by specific reasons. Vague denials will make it difficult to initiate a review.

Q3: Who will bear the cost of multiple appraisals?

The cost of each appraisal is generally prepaid by the client: if it is a unilateral commission before litigation, the client bears the cost himself; if it is applied for during litigation, the applicant pays in advance, and the losing party ultimately bears the cost. For partial support, the cost is shared according to the proportion of responsibility. The cost of reappraisal is also prepaid by the applicant first, and then shared according to the results. The cost of medical damage appraisal is usually between several thousand yuan and tens of thousands of yuan, with no unified government pricing. It is recommended to evaluate whether the statutory circumstances are met before initiating a new round of appraisal to avoid unnecessary expenses.

Q4: How long will the multi-round appraisal take?

It usually takes one to three months from the commissioning to issuing the appraisal report for each appraisal, and longer for complex cases; it also takes several weeks to determine the appraisal institution in litigation. When there are more than two rounds of appraisals, the case cycle often spans over a year: the first-instance ordinary procedure is concluded within six months and the simplified procedure within three months, but the appraisal period is not included in the trial time limit. It is recommended to advance the cross-examination of multiple opinions and the appraiser's appearance in court to avoid the procedural stagnation and prolonged cycle.

Q5: I have several reports with different conclusions in my hands. What should I do?

Four steps to proceed: First, compare each opinion in three columns, namely conclusions, basis, and procedures, to identify differences; Second, verify the qualifications of each institution, the qualifications of each appraiser, and the list of inspection materials one by one; Third, raise written objections to problematic opinions within the statutory time limit and, if necessary, request the appraiser to appear in court; Fourth, if there are indeed serious flaws in the qualifications, procedures, or basis, or new evidence, apply for a re-appraisal in accordance with the law. If unsure about the direction of acceptance, it is best to engage a professional lawyer as soon as possible to formulate a cross-examination strategy.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretations in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Personal injury legal services·Attorney Yuan Hang·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules. It is for general reference only and does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In case of disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.