A doctor who is called into court as a medical expert to testify will often be asked whether he has testified for the other side. He will cross examined and have his credibility tested.
If he is called in by the defense lawyer, he will be testifying either on behalf of the doctor or the hospital. If he's called in by the plaintiff's attorney, that means he's being called in by the patient's attorney.
There are some "medical experts" who have created a cottage industry and spend a great deal of their professional lives testifying for either injured victims or for the doctor or hospital.
As a trial lawyer, I want the jury to know whether this witness is a 'professional witness' or a physician who just happens to be called in once in a while after being consulted as a medical expert.
If a medical expert refuses to review cases for the other side and refuses to testify for the other side, do you think that might make that witness somewhat biased?
Do you think it would be important for a jury to understand if a medical expert only reviews cases for defense lawyers and only testifies on behalf of defense attorneys?
Or, do you think it would be viewed better by the jury if a medical expert has reviewed cases for both plaintiff and defendant as well as testified on behalf of injured victims and doctors and hospitals?
In this video, I explore the testimony of one medical expert who I questioned during a trial.
Watch the video to learn more...
Medical malpractice Surgical malpractice and personal injury Pain and suffering Personal injury Personal injury lawsuits Witness testimony and personal injuries Professional ethics Lawsuits and disputes
Sign up to receive a 3-part series of useful information and advice about personal injury law.