American Academy of Neurology policy on expert medical testimony

Abstract

The authors of “Expert medical testimony: Responsibilities of medical societies” express frustration with the American civil litigation system, particularly (in their opinion) the inability of judges and juries to properly evaluate “expert” medical testimony.1 Based upon my experiences as the current general counsel of the American Academy of Neurology and as a former partner in a law firm that specialized in medical malpractice defense, I understand that frustration. Our civil litigation system works well if the judges devote their full attention to pretrial, trial, and post-trial proceeding; the trial and defense attorneys are professional advocates for their clients; all expert witnesses are professional, ethical, and knowledgeable; and the juries are impartial, educated, and engaged throughout a usually lengthy and sometimes tedious trial. Unfortunately, this is not a perfect world. The medical community can attempt to improve the system by advocating for tort reform at federal and state levels. The Academy’s board of directors is now providing substantial financial and staff resources to the recently established Center for Health Policy to advocate on behalf of neurologists. Similarly, the Web sites of the American Medical …