Under what circumstances is it necessary to re-evaluate the disability level of judicial expertise?

As we all know, in medical malpractice disputes, in order to solve the dispute fairly and fairly and determine the compensation standard, patients usually entrust judicial expertise institutions to make disability grade reports as proof of compensation. The appraisal result is not credible, and the perpetrator wants to redo it. So under what circumstances do you need to re-evaluate the disability level of judicial expertise? Not all appraisal results need to be redone. First, under what circumstances does the judicial appraisal need to re-evaluate the disability level? Article 27 of "Several Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Evidence in Civil Litigation" clearly stipulates four situations that should be allowed to be re-recognized. As far as the second appraisal procedure is concerned, it is rigorous and legal. Under the auspices of the court, Yuan and the defendant selected the appraisal institution by lottery, and the appraisal institution was proposed by Yuan, which could rule out the fraud of the appraisal institution. Yuan and the defendant were present during the whole appraisal process, and did not question the appraisal behavior of the appraisers. At the trial stage, the appraisers also appeared in court to accept questions. It can be seen that all the procedures of this appraisal are in compliance with the law, and there is no legal requirement for re-appraisal. Therefore, the appraisal conclusion of the second appraisal should be adopted, and Yuanyuan's request for re-appraisal is not allowed. Second, under what circumstances does the judicial appraisal of disability level need to be re-appraised? In essence, it is to find out the facts of the case, make up for the lack of some professional skills of the judges, and make the trial of the case clearer. However, if there are many appraisals, the conclusions of each appraisal may be different, which is not only not conducive to finding out the facts of the case, but also increases the difficulty of hearing the case and loses the substantive significance of the appraisal. Third, in this case, the plaintiff made a request for re-appraisal after the conclusion of the second appraisal was unfavorable to his own side, in order to maximize his own interests. Its essence is to obtain more compensation and profits through re-appraisal, but the law guarantees fairness and justice, not a tool for one party to obtain economic benefits. Four, if allowed to identify again, it will bring some negative effects, make the case drag on for a long time, waste litigation resources and affect judicial dignity. If the second appraisal is conducted under the auspices of the court and the appraisal result is different from the previous two, then which opinion the judge should adopt, the other party will ask for another appraisal, which will lead to repeated appraisal and greatly reduce the authority of judicial appraisal. The above is the detailed arrangement of "Under what circumstances is it necessary to re-identify the disability level in judicial expertise". Small partners in need can learn from it. As can be seen from the above, the judicial expertise report is a particularly serious matter, and a second appraisal is needed only under certain circumstances. Please believe that the judicial authentication institution is fair and just.