profession

Expert witnesses on trial

State legislators, physician organizations and courts are taking steps to ensure that the experts provide ethical and appropriate testimony.

By Alicia Gallegos — Posted Aug. 1, 2011

Print  |   Email  |   Respond  |   Reprints  |   Like Facebook  |   Share Twitter  |   Tweet Linkedin

The ideal goal of an expert witness during testimony is to be "an indifferent advocate for the truth," said neurosurgeon Jeffrey Segal, MD.

Too often, though, physicians make careers as such experts and use unethical tactics to sway jurors, said Dr. Segal, founder and CEO of Medical Justice, a company that sells medical liability insurance and provides legal resources to combat frivolous claims.

"Expert witnesses are the weak or strong link in any medical liability case," he said.

Lawmakers, physician organizations and courts are taking steps to combat unethical testimony by these so-called hired guns.

In recent years, several states have enacted tighter restrictions on expert witness testimony in medical negligence cases. At the same time, more medical associations and state medical boards have created standards for proper expert witness testimony and acted against experts who violate those rules.

Courts also are taking stronger stances against questionable experts. For example, high courts in Arizona and Maryland in 2009 upheld as constitutional state restrictions against expert witnesses.

"There is a growing awareness on the part of expert witnesses -- for both sides -- that what they are doing is not necessarily going to be kept behind closed doors, which definitely was not the case 10 years ago," said Louise B. Andrew, MD, an attorney and independent consultant for physicians on litigation and expert witness issues. "They can't just go and say whatever they are paid to say and expect that peers will never know."

Florida is the latest state to pass restrictions on the use of expert witnesses in medical liability cases. Under a law signed July 1 by the governor, out-of-state physicians offering expert testimony must apply for a certificate to testify. The state medical board can discipline them if they provide deceptive testimony.

"Before, there was absolutely no accountability for what [expert witnesses] did in Florida," said Jeff Scott, general counsel for the Florida Medical Assn. With the new law, "you can't come into Florida and testify falsely and hope to get away with it."

At least 30 states have similar expert witness laws. Some statutes, such as Arizona's, require witnesses to practice in the same specialty as the physician defendant. Others, like Maryland's, mandate that doctors spend a certain amount of time actively practicing medicine.

Most state medical boards have the authority to discipline doctors found to have provided unethical witness testimony, said Lisa Robin, chief advocacy officer of the Federation of State Medical Boards. However, each board's process of investigating complaints and enacting discipline differs. Whether states have jurisdiction to punish out-of-area doctors also varies, Robin said.

In Mississippi, doctors from out of state who give deceptive testimony can be prohibited by court injunction from testifying in future cases. The state medical board also can revoke the licenses of doctors who provide false testimony and charge physicians up to $10,000 for investigating a case.

Since the 2006 regulations were adopted, the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure has not disciplined any physicians for false testimony, said board member and attorney Philip Merideth, MD. The board has investigated one case related to allegations of deceptive testimony, and the case review is ongoing, he said.

"In general, medical licensure boards are not like traffic cops and are not out there looking for infractions," he said. "We're complaint-driven. We hope [the lack of activity] means physicians are aware of the regulations and are following them."

However, Howard Blumstein, MD, president of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine, said medical boards often are hesitant to discipline witnesses for fear of lawsuits. One example he cited was the case of Florida neurosurgeon Gary Lustgarten, MD, who gave testimony as a medical expert in a North Carolina medical liability lawsuit.

The North Carolina Medical Board found that Dr. Lustgarten had engaged in unprofessional conduct by misstating facts and the appropriate standard of care. He said his testimony was professional.

In November 2003, the board suspended Dr. Lustgarten's North Carolina medical license for one year, but he fought the suspension in court. In 2006, an appeals court reversed the board's discipline.

After the case, the board revised its rules to more clearly outline what type of behavior by experts might result in license revocation, said Thomas Mansfield, the board's legal department director. Since the Dr. Lustgarten case, no disciplinary actions against experts have been taken, he said. "It appears to not be a problem," Mansfield said.

Organized medicine steps in

The American Academy of Emergency Medicine has a unique approach for dissuading and exposing alleged unethical testimony by doctors -- it publishes testimony online.

The idea came to Dr. Blumstein after several reports of outrageous medical liability testimony by AAEM members, he said. Cases are submitted by members, reviewed by the AAEM and published on the academy's website under the headline, "AAEM Remarkable Testimony."

The court documents are public record, and viewers can read complete transcripts for more case information.

The testimony sheds light on statements provided by expert witnesses in emergency medicine, Dr. Blumstein said. Like most physician organizations, the AAEM provides members with guidelines on ethical expert conduct and has a process to discipline doctors who violate those standards.

The American Assn. of Neurological Surgeons has a strict review program for physicians suspected of unprofessional conduct, including dishonest testimony. Since the program's inception in 1983, the association has taken 68 disciplinary actions, including about 45 related to improper witness testimony, said Russ Pelton, former general counsel for the AANS. Penalties include letters of censure, suspension and expulsion by the association.

Such disciplinary actions are reportable to the National Practitioner Data Bank and can impact physician privileges, said John Hutchins, associate general counsel for the American Academy of Neurology.

From 2004 to 2009, the AAN investigated 22 complaints of alleged improper expert witness testimony of its members. Discipline was recommended in four of the complaints, with action being taken against two members. The other two members resigned in lieu of punishment.

"Medical associations, in general, are very aware of [expert witness issues] and are working very hard to prevent improper testimony," Hutchins said.

American Medical Association policy states that testimony a physician gives as an expert witness is considered to be the practice of medicine. The Association encourages state medical societies to work with licensing boards to develop disciplinary measures for physicians who provide fraudulent testimony.

At the AMA Annual Meeting in June, the Association approved a report outlining model legislation for expert witnesses. The report said doctors giving testimony should be experienced in the same discipline as the defendant, be recognized by the American Board of Medical Societies or an equivalent board, or have devoted a substantial portion of time teaching at an accredited medical school in relation to the medical care that is at issue within five years of the defendant's alleged negligence. (See correction)

Courts keeping a watchful eye

Recent court decisions also have helped hold experts more accountable for what they say.

In July, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Minnesota ophthalmologist was not qualified to give an opinion about the care provided by an orthopedic surgeon.

The surgeon, Paul Huddleson, MD, was accused of failing to warn a patient about all possible surgery risks after a patient became blind after surgery, court records show. Dr. Huddleson requested that the case be dismissed based on Minnesota law, which requires that experts be experienced in the same specialty as defendants.

The appellate court said the plaintiff's expert witness had no practical experience in orthopedic surgery and was not suited to discuss surgery risks. The court dismissed the case.

In May, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that an out-of-area expert's testimony against a cataract surgeon accused of negligence was inadmissible. The surgeon, Scott Pressman, MD, was accused of failing to warn a patient about a drug's possible interaction with surgery. Dr. Pressman denied any wrongdoing.

The high court said the expert witness, an ophthalmologist, was not familiar with the local standard of care, and that his expertise with the national standard was insufficient for the case.

Dr. Segal, of Medical Justice, said another approach to curbing unethical testimony is having doctors address lawsuits with patients before they happen.

Medical Justice encourages its members to have all patients sign an agreement to use an ethical expert if a lawsuit arises. Experts must adhere to the ethical code of their professional society. The method has resulted in a reduction in lawsuits against members, Dr. Segal said.

No single approach has completely solved the problem of unethical expert testimony, Dr. Andrew said. But efforts by lawmakers and others have put expert witnesses under a microscope more than ever.

"There is still a lot of room for improvement," she said. "But every little bit helps."

Back to top


ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Judging expert testimony

In recent years, courts have ruled against questionable expert witnesses in medical liability cases.

Case: Manley Stowell v. Paul Huddleston, MD
Court: 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
Date: July 7, 2011
Summary: The appeals court ruled that a Minnesota ophthalmologist was not qualified to give an opinion about the care provided by an orthopedic surgeon. The surgeon was accused of failing to warn a patient about all possible surgery risks after a patient allegedly became blind after surgery. The plaintiff's expert witness had no practical experience in orthopedic surgery and was not suited to discuss surgery risks, the court said.

Case: Franz Suhadolnik v. Scott Pressman, MD
Court: Supreme Court of Idaho
Date: May 25, 2011
Summary: The high court ruled that an out-of-area expert's testimony against a cataract surgeon accused of negligence was inadmissible. The surgeon was accused of failing to warn a patient about a drug's possible interaction with surgery. The expert witness, an ophthalmologist, was not familiar with the local standard of care, and his expertise with the national standard was insufficient for the case, the court said.

Case: Vicki Worthy v. Robbye McNair, MD
Court: Supreme Court of Mississippi
Date: June 10, 2010
Summary: Vicki Worthy brought a wrongful death action against her obstetrician, alleging that negligent prenatal care led to her baby's death. The doctor's attorneys argued that the ob-gyn expert used by the plaintiff could not provide reliable testimony. The high court ruled that the expert was not a pathologist and did not adequately study all evidence in the case.

Case: Prentina Walker v. Pacific Hospital of Long Beach
Court: Court of Appeal of the State of California, 2nd Appellate District
Date: Jan. 4, 2010
Summary: The parents of a baby sued the hospital and two physicians for negligence after the child was stillborn. The trial court ruled that the family's medical expert was unqualified to assert his opinion in the case. The appeals court agreed, ruling that the expert lacked the emergency medical qualifications required by state law and did not adequately testify about the standard of care.

Case: University of Maryland Medical System Corp. v. Rebecca Marie Waldt
Court: Court of Appeals of Maryland
Date: Nov. 10, 2009
Summary: Justices ruled that Maryland's expert witness regulations were constitutional. The law prohibits the use of medical experts who devote more than 20% of their professional time to testifying in personal injury cases. The decision reversed an appellate decision that allowed a French interventional neuroradiologist to testify as a plaintiff's witness in a medical negligence case, although he had not practiced since 2001 and most of his income came from serving as an expert witness.

Case: Laura Seisinger v. Scott Siebel, MD
Court: Arizona Supreme Court
Date: March 13, 2009
Summary: The court upheld the constitutionality of a 2005 law establishing minimum qualifications for expert witnesses. The case involved a patient who sued an anesthesiologist for negligence in 2002. The court deemed the patient's expert witness was unfit to testify because he did not meet an expert witness teaching requirement. The law requires the witness to have devoted a majority of professional time in active clinical practice or teaching in the same specialty as the defendant doctor.

Back to top


Correction

This article originally misstated American Medical Association policy on physician expert testimony. An AMA report adopted in June said doctors giving expert testimony should be recognized by the American Board of Medical Societies or an equivalent board, be in active medical practice in the same discipline as the defendant or have devoted a substantial portion of time teaching at an accredited medical school in relation to the medical care at issue within five years of the defendant's alleged negligence. American Medical News regrets the error.

Back to top


ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISE HERE


Featured
Read story

Confronting bias against obese patients

Medical educators are starting to raise awareness about how weight-related stigma can impair patient-physician communication and the treatment of obesity. Read story


Read story

Goodbye

American Medical News is ceasing publication after 55 years of serving physicians by keeping them informed of their rapidly changing profession. Read story


Read story

Policing medical practice employees after work

Doctors can try to regulate staff actions outside the office, but they must watch what they try to stamp out and how they do it. Read story


Read story

Diabetes prevention: Set on a course for lifestyle change

The YMCA's evidence-based program is helping prediabetic patients eat right, get active and lose weight. Read story


Read story

Medicaid's muddled preventive care picture

The health system reform law promises no-cost coverage of a lengthy list of screenings and other prevention services, but some beneficiaries still might miss out. Read story


Read story

How to get tax breaks for your medical practice

Federal, state and local governments offer doctors incentives because practices are recognized as economic engines. But physicians must know how and where to find them. Read story


Read story

Advance pay ACOs: A down payment on Medicare's future

Accountable care organizations that pay doctors up-front bring practice improvements, but it's unclear yet if program actuaries will see a return on investment. Read story


Read story

Physician liability: Your team, your legal risk

When health care team members drop the ball, it's often doctors who end up in court. How can physicians improve such care and avoid risks? Read story