In yet another swipe at expert witnesses who are retained by Plaintiff counsel in medical malpractice cases a recent article in the Journal of Neurosurgery concluded that defense medical experts are more qualified than plaintiff medical experts?
The Article: Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery
The authors of the article concluded:
Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Experts for plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.
As medical societies continue to discipline and attempt to intimidate experts retained by Plaintiff counsel an interesting question is raised:
Have any of these medical societies EVER disciplined a physician for testifying on behalf of a physician defendant?
Write a Reply or Comment