Program seeks review of expert witnesses

Under the Tennessee pilot system, a judge will look to a third-party physician to evaluate witnesses' opinions and help determine if they should be admissible.

By Mike Norbut, AMNews staff. Nov. 21, 2005.

Physicians long have complained about questionable expert witnesses influencing jury decisions in medical liability cases. Now one Tennessee court is trying to keep what doctors call "junk science" out on both sides of the aisle.

Some doctors and lawyers collaborated to design the system, in which an independent professional can help determine whether expert testimony in a medical liability case is credible.

In a spirit of cooperation that has been virtually absent throughout the national medical liability crisis, the Medical Society of Chattanooga and Hamilton County, the Chattanooga Bar Assn. and a state circuit court judge in late October launched the pilot program based on existing court evidence rules. The seldom-used rules allow a judge to call on an expert to help him or her determine if a witness' opinion should be admissible in court.

The rules can come in handy, particularly for medical liability cases, where experts from each side often have opposing viewpoints on how a physician's actions relate to the standard of care. The divergent opinions not only can confuse jurors but also can add time to an already lengthy litigation process, as the court tries to separate scientific evidence from speculation.

Enlisting the help of an independent physician to evaluate expert testimony not only could stop groundless cases before they make it to trial but also could expose a defendant's weak arguments and further protect a patient's case, supporters of the project said.