Minnesota physician can sue doctors critical of courtroom testimony

However, the trial judge dismissed the physician plaintiff's defamation claims against the specialty society reviewing his testimony.

By Amy Lynn Sorrel, AMNews staff. April 21, 2008.

A recent Minnesota trial court ruling raises questions about whether medical specialty societies should serve as sentinels over expert witnesses in the courtroom.

A Hennepin County District Court judge tossed out claims that the American Academy of Ophthalmology defamed Charles Yancey, MD, when its ethics committee examined his statements as a plaintiff expert in a medical liability case. The investigation followed a complaint made by two academy members. Ophthalmologists Jeffrey R. Weis, MD, and David R. Hardten, MD, were defendants in the lawsuit and accused Dr. Yancey of giving misleading testimony.

The court said Dr. Yancey, as an AAO member, agreed to abide by the academy's ethical rules and regulations, which include a peer review system for questionable medical testimony. The judge dismissed claims that the AAO and Drs. Weis and Hardten had conspired to intimidate Dr. Yancey from testifying in future cases.

But the court allowed Dr. Yancey to sue the two doctors individually for allegedly besmirching his reputation when they filed their grievance with the AAO. The trial is expected to begin in August.

In its decision, the court also raised some public policy concerns about the issue, which has divided physicians.

Judge Tony N. Leung recognized the benefits "in favor of effective peer review in the medical professions for the purpose of reducing instances of medical malpractice," noting federal protections available under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act. "At the same time ... it is debatable whether the public would be benefited by having professional peer review used to curtail or chill what could be appropriate testimony by experts in medical malpractice cases," Leung wrote in the Feb. 25 opinion.