Moraxella catarrhalis bacteremia

Abstract

hospital, she subsequemly developed a severe infection that over the course of several years involved the bones of her leg. The non-physician expert acting as consultant for the plaintiff's attorney, was able to suggest that the treating physician closed the wound prematurely which predisposed to the infection. The consultant's opinion was based upon his review of the standards of care as published in several textbooks of surgery. Case 3. An infant developed severe seizures several hours after delivery, and the obstetrician was sued for permitting prolonged labor that compromised the oxygen supply of the fetus resulting in brain damage. The nonphysician expert, acting as consultant for the defense, reviewed the mother's prenatal history and advised the defense attorney that the infant's seizures could have been caused by a specific infectious disease contracted by the mother during her pregnancy. In the first two cases, the consultant dealt with the standard of care; the third case was concerned with proximate cause. An expert's opinion may be based upon his/her personal experience, experiments that he/she has conducted that directly relate to the case, or on scientific articles published by others (ER.E. 703). In some instances standards of care have been published by professional organizations, and the nonphysician expert may refer to and rely upon such sources. The Hearsay Rule (ER.E. 803) exempts material from learned treatises relied upon by the expert witness in direct examination. The rule notes that statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of...medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness.., may be read into evidence . . . . Non-physician biomedical scientists explaining aspects of anatomy, biochemistry, pharmacology, immunology, microbiology, pathology, or other basic medical sciences can be very effective as testifying experts for either plaintiff or defense. It is the writer's opinion that for psychological rather than legal reasons, it is easier for a non-physician expert to defend or justify a physician's actions than to disparage or criticize a doctor's treatment. Hence, non-physician experts dealing with questions relating to standards of care, especially when working for the plaintiff's attorney, may be more useful as litigation consultants.