Comments on: Expert witnesses – a vanishing breed?

By: John Schedler

John Schedler — Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:44:31 +0000

Good points here. In my state (WA) the Supreme Court made it clear that expert testimony is subject to professional discipline. As professional licensing & discipline is my speacialty, I have waited in vain for the cases to come in. To my knowledge, so far no one has even made a referral for investigation, let alone have charges been layed.

The licensing boards have to want to take the case, which they do not appear to.

By: Louise B Andrew MD JD FACEP

Louise B Andrew MD JD FACEP — Mon, 29 Dec 2003 14:23:26 +0000

Please read my response to the NYTimes article, which merely repeated false information previously published in the LA Times and elsewhere regarding an expert witness’s specious claim of intimidation by a specialty society, at http://www.ccemt.org Breaking News story 12/21/03.

You may also read about the latest state board attempt to regulate expert witness testimony at http://www.ccemt.org, Breaking News story from 11/26/03.

In my opinion, although specialty societies’ peer review of expert testimony is a start, there is a definite bias inherent in the process because society members will naturally only request review of plaintiff testimony, when in fact, there is quite a bit of dishonest testimony on both sides of the courtroom. The AMA will do nothing with the dishonest expert unless a licensure board has taken action, or unless a witness has actually been convicted of perujury. The state licensure boards are accessible by the public as well as the physician licensees, and they have an obligation to protect the public as well as the licensees who are practicing appropriately. Since expert witness testimony (when incorporated into a legal judgment) does set the standard of care for practice in a given state, such testimony can be construed as practice of medicine. Thus it is appropriate behavior for peer review by a state licensure board.

By: Shadow Merchant

Shadow Merchant — Sat, 27 Dec 2003 01:46:32 +0000

I think that state medical boards need not be involved. If the state medical society or a medical specialty society adopts resolutions censuring these whores, surely that would be admissible to court? How much faith would a jury have in an expert witness if they knew that he had been condemned for false or misleading testimony by the AMA or ACOG?

By: Ross

Ross — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 14:43:12 +0000

CHenry,

True, they are receiving more scrutiny from state medical boards; however, the courts have been knocking down disciplinary action by state medical boards on issues pertaining to the meat of the testimony (their expert opinions), limiting the realm of the “unprofessional conduct” discipline to such issues as whether the expert misrepresented his credentials or lied about something on the stand (e.g., if they’ve been disciplined in another jurisdiction).

By: CHenry

CHenry — Mon, 22 Dec 2003 00:32:51 +0000

Scrutiny of expert testimony is extending beyond the review by professional societies to include state boards of medicine, on the theory that expert testimony is a practice of medicine and that specious testimony is professional misconduct. Physicians offering conflicting testimony are now finding themselves not only discredited as witnesses but also under investigation for unprofessional conduct.