For both sides in a medical malpractice case, expert medical testimony is critical. Expert medical testimony aids the jury in determining the essential issues in dispute: did the defendant deviate from the standard of care, and if so, did this deviation result in a medical injury? These issues require special knowledge to resolve. Therefore, expert medical testimony is fundamental to each party’s presentation of evidence at trial.

The frequency of efforts by one or both parties to litigation to exclude medical expert testimony from trial is increasing. These efforts call upon the trial court to strike medical expert testimony based on the standard for admissibility described in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, a case decided in 1993 by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2013, the Florida legislature amended the Florida Rules of Evidence to adopt the Daubert standard. In 2019, this standard was recognized by the Florida Supreme Court to apply in Florida as a procedural rule.

  • For trial courts favoring a bright-line rule in deciding expert medical testimony is founded on a reliable methodology, peer reviewed medical literature is necessary to explain the methodology.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]