Adam J. Folbe

Choudhry AJ

Gorney M

Guglielmo WJ

Hollingsworth JG

James K. Liu

Jean Anderson Eloy

Kovalerchik O

Moffett P

Paik AM

Peter F. Svider

Satyanarayana K

Smith ER

Svider PF

US General Accounting Office

Vallabhajosula B

William T. Couldwell


Object
Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by nonmedical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and the potential professional repercussions, however, have been controversial in the medical community. The objective of the present analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation.

Methods
Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the WestlawNext legal database. Data pertaining to duration of a surgeon's practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h index), practice setting, and the frequency with which a surgeon testifies were obtained for these expert witnesses from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards.

Results
Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience per person (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs 33.2 for defense witnesses, p = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h index = 8.76 vs 5.46, p &lt; 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, p &lt; 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times than those testifying on behalf of defendants (20.4% vs 12.6%).

Conclusions
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.</jats:sec

Crossref

Journal of Neurosurgery

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref