Qualification of an expert

Expert Qualification Requirements in Medical Malpractice Cases

Medical malpractice litigation relies heavily on expert testimony to establish negligence and causation. However, not every physician can serve as an expert witness on every medical issue. Courts scrutinize whether experts possess the specialized knowledge necessary to offer credible opinions within their proposed scope of testimony.

The qualification of expert witnesses has become increasingly stringent, particularly when experts attempt to testify outside their primary area of specialization. This trend reflects courts’ efforts to ensure that expert opinions are based on genuine expertise rather than general medical knowledge. Understanding these qualification requirements is crucial for both attorneys and medical professionals involved in litigation.

Case Background

In Steinberg v Lenox Hill Hospital, plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a hospital and treating physicians. The case centered on complications allegedly arising from medical treatment that resulted in visual impairment for the plaintiff. During litigation, plaintiffs attempted to establish causation through expert testimony from a cardiovascular surgeon regarding neurological and ophthalmological issues—medical specialties far removed from the expert’s area of practice.

The First Department was called upon to determine whether this expert’s opinions could support plaintiffs’ prima facie case on causation. The court’s analysis focused on two critical elements: whether the expert possessed specialized knowledge in the relevant medical fields, and whether the expert could demonstrate the requisite personal knowledge necessary to form opinions about the plaintiff’s visual impairment.

Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:

Steinberg v Lenox Hill Hosp., 2017 NY Slip Op 02383 (1st Dept. 2017)

Yes, the general rule is that a physician can offer an expert opinion about a medical issue and that will be sufficient evidence to make a prima facie showing or to defeat a prima faice showing. There is a tension on this issue where I am seeing that the exception to the rule is more true than the rule itself.

“Plaintiffs’ expert was also not qualified to offer an opinion as to causation. He specializes in cardiovascular surgery, not neurology or ophthalmology. Moreover, he failed to “profess the requisite personal knowledge” necessary to make a determination on the issue of whether the perforation was responsible for plaintiff’s visual impairment”

Legal Significance

This decision represents a significant departure from the traditional rule that any licensed physician can offer expert medical testimony. Historically, New York courts applied a relatively liberal standard for expert qualification, permitting physicians to testify on medical matters outside their specific specialty as long as they possessed general medical knowledge. However, as medical practice has become increasingly specialized, courts have recognized that meaningful expertise requires focused training and experience in the particular medical discipline at issue.

The First Department’s ruling in Steinberg aligns with a growing body of case law that demands more rigorous expert qualifications. The court’s requirement that experts “profess the requisite personal knowledge” goes beyond mere licensing credentials, requiring experts to demonstrate actual experience and training in the specific medical field relevant to their testimony. This standard prevents parties from circumventing proper expert requirements by finding any willing physician to offer opinions on complex medical issues.

Practical Implications for Attorneys

This ruling has substantial implications for both plaintiffs and defendants in medical malpractice litigation. Plaintiff attorneys must carefully vet their experts to ensure they possess not only general medical knowledge but also specialized expertise directly relevant to the alleged malpractice. Generic medical opinions from physicians outside the relevant specialty will likely fail to establish a prima facie case, resulting in dismissal before trial.

For defendants, this decision provides a powerful tool for challenging inadequately qualified experts. Defense counsel should scrutinize opposing experts’ credentials, training, and experience in the specific medical field at issue. When experts stray outside their area of specialization, defendants can move to preclude their testimony or seek summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiffs cannot establish their prima facie case without properly qualified expert support.

Key Takeaway

While physicians generally qualify as medical experts, courts increasingly require specialized knowledge in the specific medical field at issue. A cardiovascular surgeon cannot simply offer opinions about neurological or ophthalmological matters without demonstrating requisite personal knowledge and experience in those areas. This trend toward stricter expert qualification standards reflects judicial efforts to ensure reliable, specialized testimony in complex medical cases.

Related Articles

• Expert witnesses again
• The expert opinion
• An expert can testify about the standard of care of a “sub-specialist” in appropriate cases