To say that the quality of expert testimony offered in medical malpractice trials varies widely would be a serious understatement. Although trial judges no longer formally determine an expert qualified to testify upon request of the party calling the expert, the court may be called upon to make a ruling in response to opposing counsel’s objection or trial motion. Therefore, the court continues to have a key role to play in assessing the qualifications of experts to offer opinion evidence. In the era of junk science and gatekeeper responsibilities, the approach of trial courts to this issue is distributed across a wide spectrum of outcome.
“The qualification of a witness as an expert rests in the discretion of the Trial Judge…”1 All too often, however, attorneys have been permitted to present expansive opinion testimony by physicians claiming expertise in specialized areas of medicine, even though their active practice was remote in time and subject from the relevant issues in dispute. The willingness of an “expert” to express an opinion needs to be viewed separately from his or her qualifications to do so.
This content has been archived.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
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]
