The Appellate Division discusses how an expert becomes comptent to testify about the standard of care in a specific area of practice

Medical Expert Testimony Standards: How Experts Become Qualified to Testify in New York Courts

In New York’s complex legal landscape, particularly in personal injury and medical malpractice cases throughout Nassau County, Suffolk County, and New York City, the qualification of medical experts can make or break a case. Understanding when and how a medical expert becomes competent to testify about standards of care in specialized areas of practice is crucial for both attorneys and their clients seeking justice.

The Shectman Case: Setting Clear Standards

The Appellate Division, Second Department, in Shectman v Wilson 2009 NY Slip Op 09208 (2d Dept. 2009), observed the following:

“Here, the defendant physicians established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence demonstrating that their care and treatment of the plaintiffs did not depart from good and accepted medical practices. In opposition, the plaintiffs came forward with the affidavit of a physician, specializing in the fields of obstetrics and gynecology, who contested the opinions of the defendants’ respective experts concerning the proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s developmental disabilities. The affidavit of the plaintiffs’ expert did not mention whether the physician had any specific training or expertise in pediatrics, psychiatry, or particularized knowledge as to the relevant disabilities of the infant plaintiff. Moreover, the affidavit did not indicate that the physician had familiarized himself with the relevant literature or otherwise set forth how he was, or became, familiar with the applicable standards of care in this specialized area of practice.” While it is true that a medical expert need not be a specialist in a particular field in order to testify regarding accepted practices in that field … the witness nonetheless should be possessed of the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience from which it can be assumed that the opinion rendered is reliable’” (Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d 1045, 1046-1047, quoting Postlethwaite v United Health Servs. Hosps., 5 AD3d 892, 895). Thus, where a physician opines outside his or her area of specialization, a foundation must be laid tending to support the reliability of the opinion rendered (see Geffner v North Shore Univ. Hosp., 57 AD3d 839, 841; Bjorke v Rubenstein, 53 AD3d 519, 520; Glazer v Lee, 51 AD3d 970, 971; Mustello v Berg, 44 AD3d 1018, 1019; Behar v Coren, 21 AD3d at 1046-1047; Nangano v Mount Sinai Hosp., 305 AD2d 473, 474). In this case, the plaintiffs’ expert failed to establish the requisite foundation.

Understanding Expert Witness Qualification in New York

The Legal Framework

New York courts have developed a comprehensive framework for evaluating medical expert testimony that balances the need for specialized knowledge with practical considerations. This framework is particularly important in complex medical malpractice cases that frequently arise in the healthcare systems of Long Island and New York City.

The courts recognize that modern medicine is highly specialized, and what constitutes appropriate care in one field may differ significantly from standards in another. This is especially relevant in medical centers throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties, where patients often receive care from multiple specialists.

Core Requirements for Medical Expert Testimony

For a medical expert to provide competent testimony in New York courts, several foundational elements must be established:

1. Professional Qualifications

The expert must possess appropriate medical credentials and be licensed to practice medicine. This baseline requirement applies whether the case is being heard in Manhattan’s federal courts, Nassau County Supreme Court, or Suffolk County’s various courthouse locations.

2. Relevant Experience

The expert should have practical experience in the field related to the case. This doesn’t necessarily mean board certification in the specific specialty, but there must be demonstrable familiarity with the relevant medical issues.

3. Knowledge of Standards of Care

Perhaps most critically, the expert must demonstrate familiarity with the applicable standards of care, either through:

• Direct experience in the relevant field
• Continuing education and training
• Review of relevant medical literature
• Consultation with specialists in the field

The Foundation Requirement

What Constitutes Adequate Foundation?

The Shectman decision emphasizes that when a physician testifies outside their primary area of specialization, a proper foundation must be established. This foundation might include:

Literature Review: Evidence that the expert has studied relevant medical literature and current standards in the field.

Continuing Education: Documentation of relevant training, courses, or certifications that provide knowledge of the specialized area.

Professional Experience: Specific instances where the expert has encountered similar medical issues in their practice.

Consultation History: Evidence of previous consultations or collaborations with specialists in the relevant field.

Common Pitfalls in Expert Qualification

Many cases fail at the expert qualification stage due to insufficient foundation-laying. Common problems include:

• Generic Credentials: Relying solely on general medical training without demonstrating specific knowledge of the relevant specialty
• Outdated Knowledge: Failing to show current familiarity with evolving medical standards
• Overly Broad Testimony: Attempting to testify beyond the scope of demonstrated expertise
• Inadequate Literature Review: Not showing familiarity with current medical literature in the relevant field

Practical Implications for New York Practice

For Long Island and NYC Cases

In the busy medical malpractice practice throughout New York’s metropolitan area, proper expert qualification is essential. This is particularly true given the complexity of cases involving:

• Multi-specialty Care: Cases involving multiple medical specialties, common in large hospital systems like those on Long Island
• Emergency Medicine: Rapid-care scenarios where standard procedures may vary
• Pediatric Specialties: Cases involving children requiring specialized knowledge of developmental medicine
• Psychiatric Issues: Mental health components requiring specific expertise

Strategic Considerations

For Plaintiffs’ Attorneys

When selecting medical experts, careful attention must be paid to:

1. Matching Expertise to Issues: Ensuring the expert’s background aligns with the specific medical issues in the case
2. Foundation Building: Gathering comprehensive information about the expert’s qualifications and knowledge base
3. Literature Preparation: Ensuring experts are familiar with current medical literature relevant to the case
4. Scope Definition: Clearly defining the boundaries of the expert’s testimony

For Defense Attorneys

When challenging plaintiff experts, focus areas include:

1. Credentialing Challenges: Examining whether the expert has appropriate qualifications
2. Foundation Attacks: Questioning the basis for the expert’s knowledge in specialized areas
3. Literature Currency: Challenging whether the expert’s knowledge reflects current standards
4. Experience Gaps: Highlighting areas where the expert lacks practical experience

NYC and Long Island Healthcare Context

Regional Medical Standards

Healthcare delivery in New York’s metropolitan area involves several unique considerations:

Academic Medical Centers: Many cases involve care at teaching hospitals, requiring experts familiar with academic medicine standards.

Community Hospital Systems: Understanding the differences between care standards at community hospitals versus tertiary care centers.

Specialty Referral Patterns: Knowledge of how different specialists interact and when referrals are appropriate.

Emergency Care Standards: Familiarity with emergency medicine protocols specific to high-volume urban and suburban settings.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Can a family practice physician testify about surgical standards of care?

A: Possibly, but only if they can establish adequate foundation through training, experience, literature review, or other means that demonstrate familiarity with surgical standards. The key is not the physician’s primary specialty but their demonstrated knowledge of the relevant standards.

Q: How recent must an expert’s knowledge be to testify about medical standards?

A: While there’s no specific time limit, experts should demonstrate current knowledge of the field. This typically means familiarity with medical literature and standards from within the past few years, depending on how rapidly the field evolves.

Q: What happens if an expert’s qualifications are successfully challenged?

A: If a court finds that an expert lacks adequate foundation, their testimony may be excluded or limited. This can significantly impact a case, particularly if the expert was central to proving or defending against malpractice claims.

Q: Can an expert review literature specifically for a case, or must they have prior knowledge?

A: An expert can review relevant literature for a case, but they must demonstrate that this review, combined with their background and experience, provides a reliable foundation for their testimony. Simply reading articles without underlying medical knowledge is generally insufficient.

Q: Do different medical malpractice cases require different levels of expert qualification?

A: Yes, the complexity and specificity of the medical issues will affect the level of qualification required. More specialized procedures or rare conditions may require experts with more specific credentials and experience.

Conclusion

The Shectman v Wilson decision provides crucial guidance for medical expert qualification in New York courts. The case establishes that while medical experts don’t necessarily need to be board-certified specialists in every area they address, they must demonstrate adequate foundation for their opinions through training, experience, literature review, or other means that support the reliability of their testimony.

For attorneys practicing medical malpractice law throughout New York City, Nassau County, and Suffolk County, this decision underscores the importance of carefully vetting experts and establishing proper foundations for their testimony. The stakes in medical malpractice cases are often high, involving significant financial damages and professional reputations, making proper expert qualification essential for successful outcomes.

Whether representing patients who have suffered medical injuries or healthcare providers defending their professional conduct, understanding these qualification standards is crucial for effective legal representation in New York’s complex healthcare litigation landscape.

Need Legal Representation?

If you or a loved one has been affected by potential medical malpractice and need experienced legal representation that understands both the medical and legal complexities involved, call the Law Office of Jason Tenenbaum at 516-750-0595. Our team has extensive experience in medical malpractice cases and works with qualified medical experts to build strong cases for our clients.

This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique and requires individual analysis.

Related Articles

• Understanding foundation requirements for medical malpractice expert testimony
• Expert qualification standards in New York No-Fault cases and professional sufficiency requirements
• Proof that physician was internist sufficient for expert medical testimony in NY personal injury cases
• Opposing expert affirmation sufficient to thwart summary judgment in malpractice cases
• New York No-Fault Insurance Law

---

Legal Update (February 2026): Since this 2009 decision, New York’s standards for medical expert qualification may have evolved through subsequent appellate decisions, amendments to CPLR provisions governing expert testimony, or changes in professional licensing requirements. Practitioners should verify current case law and procedural rules regarding expert witness competency standards, particularly any updates to the foundational requirements for establishing medical expertise in specialized fields of practice.