Characteristics of Radiologists Serving as Medical Malpractice Expert Witnesses for Defense Versus Plaintiff.

Abstract

Previous studies have reported higher qualification characteristics for anesthesiologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons, and otolaryngologists serving as defense (versus plaintiff) medical malpractice expert witnesses. We assessed such characteristics for radiologist expert witnesses. Using the Westlaw legal research database, we identified radiologists serving as experts in all indexed medical malpractice cases between 2010 and 2019. Online databases were used to identify years of practice experience and scholarly bibliometrics. Using Medicare claims, individual radiologist practice types and mixes were ascertained. Radiologists testifying at least once each for defense and plaintiff were excluded from our defense-only versus plaintiff-only comparative analysis. Initial Boolean searches yielded 1,042 potential cases; subsequent manual review identified 179 radiologists testifying in 231 lawsuits: 143 testified in one case (58 defense, 85 plaintiff) and 36 testified in multiple cases (10 defense-only, 14 plaintiff-only, 12 both). The 68 defense-only experts had fewer years of practice experience than the 99 plaintiff-only experts (28.3 versus 31.8 years, P=.02), but the two groups were otherwise similar in both practice type (44.6% versus 54.9% academic, P= .62) and mix (63.8% versus 65.8% practiced as subspecialists, P= .37) and as well as numbers of publications (60.5 versus 62.8, P= .86), citations (1,994.1 versus 2,309.2, P= .56), and h-indices (17.2 versus 16.8, P= .89). In contrast to other specialists, radiologists serving as medical malpractice expert witnesses for defense and plaintiff display similar qualifications across various characteristics. Published practice parameter guidelines and experts' ability to blindly review archived original images might together explain this interspecialty discordance.