Comparison of Plastic Surgeons’ Qualifications as Plaintiff and Defendant Expert Witnesses

Abstract

PURPOSE: In medical malpractice cases, expert witnesses (EW) can be recruited by either side to interpret medical events into information readily understood by the layperson. The role of the EW testimony continues to be controversial among medical professionals as factors such as financial compensation come into play. This study describes the qualifications and expertise of plastic surgeon EW. METHODS: The Westlaw database was searched for jury verdict and settlement reports from 2011-2013, during which a plastic surgeon served as EW. To assess qualification, years in practice, scholarly impact (measured by h-index), academic appointment, and fellowship training were obtained from public online resources. RESULTS: Our search produced 55 cases during which at least one plastic surgeon testified as a medical EW. Of these, 65.5% resulted in favor of the defendant, 29.1% resulted in favor of the plaintiff, and 5.5% resulted in settlement. The most frequently encountered subject matters of these cases were cosmetic breast procedures (18.2%) and oncologic management (12.7%) (Figure 1). In 50 of the cases, a plaintiff EW (PEW) testified whereas a defendant EW (DEW) testified in only 37 cases. There was no significant difference in years of experience (median –27 vs. 26 years) or in h-index (median – 4.5 vs. 3 years) between all PEW and DEW. Although not statistically significant, a greater proportion of PEW (38.0%) had an academic title than DEW (29.7%) and a greater proportion of DEW (37.8%) completed fellowship training than DEW (26.0%).Figure 1: Distribution of case subjects where a plastic surgeon testified as an expert witness.Subgroup analysis was performed on cases with plastic surgery EW testimony on behalf of both plaintiff and defendant. Of these cases, PEW had more years of experience than their DEW counterpart (median – 35 vs. 25.5 respectively, p=0.005) (Figure 2). No differences in h-index, academic appointment, or fellowship training were found in this subgroup.Figure 2: Depiction of expert witness experience in cases where both a plaintiff and a defendant expert witness testified.CONCLUSION: Our study shows that in the last three years, practitioners testifying for either plaintiff or defendant have comparable expertise in plastic surgery with no discernible difference in years of experience, scholarly impact, academic appointment, or fellowship training. When cases had an EW on both sides, the PEW had more years of experience. As medical malpractice cases are shown to favor a defendant verdict, plaintiff’s attorneys may prefer to call upon a more senior EW to provide heightened credibility to the testimony.