EXPERTISE OF THE EXPERT MEDICAL WITNESS IN CONGENITAL MALFORMATION LAWSUITS

Abstract

During the past 15 years I have had the opportunity to review the data from over 100 potential congenital malformation lawsuits. Many came to trial and a review of the testimony and depositions of expert witnesses has been most revealing. Distortion of the facts occurs very commonly. While over 50% of the plaintiff's expert medical witnesses (19/31) distorted the truth, this occurred in less than 10% of the defendent's expert witnesses. Just as important as the distortion of the truth is the gross evidence of lack of scholarship and objectivity. Many expert witnesses become partisans rather than objective experts. Several case histories will be presented to demonstrate the type of distortion that appears and the severity of the lack of objectivity. It is apparent that medical experts are confused about what is the proper role of a qualified medical expert. Medical schools and clinical training programs do not prepare a physician for the role of the expert witness. Consequently, notoriety and financial compensation may be more important to expert witnesses than the need to be an expert. It is suggested that improving the quality of expert medical testimony might ameliorate somewhat the malpractice crisis. This can be accomplished by providing formal education to medical students and residents about the proper role of an expert witness and by exposing to public scrutiny the testimony of medical expert witnesses.(Supported by HD 630; EY-76-S-02-3268.A001)