Expert witnesses need scrutiny: The Tennessee approach

Improper medicolegal testimony contributes to rising medical liability costs and mistrust in the legal system. It must be kept out of the courtroom.

Editorial. Dec. 19, 2005.

A serious concern about the tort system is the questionable testimony provided by some physician witnesses who are true experts only in their ability to collect hefty fees from lawyers.

When courts don't do enough to weed out the "junk science" being presented as fact -- and they often don't -- it drives up medical liability costs. It's an unfair burden for doctors and a threat to access to care for their patients.

Now judges in one Tennessee county who are unsure of whether a physician's expert witness testimony is a jewel or junk have an independent resource they can turn to for guidance.

In October, the Medical Society of Chattanooga and Hamilton County, the Chattanooga Bar Assn. and a state circuit court judge kicked off a pilot program that allows judges to turn to an expert to help them figure out whether a witness's opinion should be allowed to stand up in court or whether it is bunk.

The rules were already in place, but judges rarely used them. Under this pilot program, those on the bench who are faced with deciding whether an expert's testimony should be allowed in court -- a particularly tricky decision when there are dueling expert witnesses -- can turn to the medical society to recommend impartial witnesses to help sort out what is credible.

To ensure fairness, the medical society will know only the bare minimum about the case. The independent expert can't be insured through the same company as the defendant doctor and must, at minimum, live in a bordering state.