Expert Witness Testimony in Spine Surgery: A Review of Guidelines and Recommendations From Professional Organizations.
Journal
Neurosurgery
ISSN: 1524-4040
Titre abrégé: Neurosurgery
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 7802914
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 03 2023
01 03 2023
Historique:
received:
22
06
2022
accepted:
11
09
2022
pubmed:
28
1
2023
medline:
18
2
2023
entrez:
27
1
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Most professional spine societies have enacted formal guidelines for spine surgeons providing expert witness services. However, there is significant heterogeneity in existing recommendations, with most societies providing information that is limited in detail and scope. To provide a review of guidelines published by professional spine societies for spine surgeons serving as expert witnesses. The Gale Directory Library, PubMed, and the grey literature were queried for national or international professional societies related to spine surgery. The search was focused on societies in the United States and North America, but also included well recognized international organizations in the field of spine surgery. Included societies with publicly available guidelines regarding expert witness services were extracted for 4 domains: (1) qualifications, (2) preparations, (3) testimony, and (4) compensation as well as the presence of a professional compliance program, defined as any official subcommittee aimed toward investigating claims of unethical behavior. Although most professional spine societies share general themes with respect to expert witness guidelines, important differences exist. Of the 26 societies included, 10 included publicly available guidelines: 4 of which were general neurosurgery societies, 2 general orthopedic surgery, and 4 spine specific. Three societies included the guidelines on all 4 domains (ie, qualifications, preparations, testimony, and compensation), and 2 societies included only 1 of the 4 domains. Eight societies possess a professional compliance program. There remains a paucity in expert witness guidelines provided by professional spine societies. Although existing recommendations are useful, there is a lack of standardized and comprehensive materials for spine surgeons providing expert witness testimony to reference. Moving forward, joint committees comprising surgeons, attorneys, and patient stakeholders may help improve the guidelines.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Most professional spine societies have enacted formal guidelines for spine surgeons providing expert witness services. However, there is significant heterogeneity in existing recommendations, with most societies providing information that is limited in detail and scope.
OBJECTIVE
To provide a review of guidelines published by professional spine societies for spine surgeons serving as expert witnesses.
METHODS
The Gale Directory Library, PubMed, and the grey literature were queried for national or international professional societies related to spine surgery. The search was focused on societies in the United States and North America, but also included well recognized international organizations in the field of spine surgery. Included societies with publicly available guidelines regarding expert witness services were extracted for 4 domains: (1) qualifications, (2) preparations, (3) testimony, and (4) compensation as well as the presence of a professional compliance program, defined as any official subcommittee aimed toward investigating claims of unethical behavior.
RESULTS
Although most professional spine societies share general themes with respect to expert witness guidelines, important differences exist. Of the 26 societies included, 10 included publicly available guidelines: 4 of which were general neurosurgery societies, 2 general orthopedic surgery, and 4 spine specific. Three societies included the guidelines on all 4 domains (ie, qualifications, preparations, testimony, and compensation), and 2 societies included only 1 of the 4 domains. Eight societies possess a professional compliance program.
CONCLUSION
There remains a paucity in expert witness guidelines provided by professional spine societies. Although existing recommendations are useful, there is a lack of standardized and comprehensive materials for spine surgeons providing expert witness testimony to reference. Moving forward, joint committees comprising surgeons, attorneys, and patient stakeholders may help improve the guidelines.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36705513
doi: 10.1227/neu.0000000000002226
pii: 00006123-202303000-00002
doi:
Types de publication
Review
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
441-449Informations de copyright
Copyright © Congress of Neurological Surgeons 2022. All rights reserved.
Références
Congress of Neurological Surgeons Bylaws. Congress of Neurological Surgeons; 2019.
Kelner J. The silent doctors—the conspiracy of silence. Univ Rich L Rev. 1970;5(1):119.
Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):629-636.
Nahed BV, Babu MA, Smith TR, Heary RF. Malpractice liability and defensive medicine: a national survey of neurosurgeons. PLoS One. 2012;7(6):e39237.
Zhang JK, del Valle AJ, Alexopoulos G, et al. Malpractice litigation in elective lumbar spinal fusion: a comprehensive review of reported legal claims in the U.S. in the past 50 years. Spine J. 2022;22(8):1254-1264
Svider PF, Eloy JA, Baredes S, Setzen M, Folbe AJ. Expert witness testimony guidelines: identifying areas for improvement. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2015;152(2):207-210.
Babitsky S. What Retiring Physicians Need to Know About Supplemental Income. SEAK; 2020.
Hawkins TS. Expert testimony: a perspective from the trenches. J Am Coll Radiol. 2005;2(2):126-130.
Marwick C. Court ruling on 'junk science' gives judges more say about what expert witness testimony to allow. JAMA. 1993;270(4):423.
Price JM, Rosenberg ES. The war against junk science: the use of expert panels in complex medical-legal scientific litigation. Biomaterials. 1998;19(16):1425-1432.
Milroy CM. A Brief history of the expert witness. Acad Forensic Pathol. 2017;7(4):516-526.
SEAK I. State Specific Rules Governing Testifying as an Expert Witness in Medical Malpractice Case. Testifying Training; 2014.
Expert Directory. AMFS. Accessed May 28, 2022. https://www.amfs.com/expert-directory/
Park HY, Zoller SD, Sheppard WL, et al. A comparison of defense and plaintiff expert witnesses in orthopaedic surgery malpractice litigation. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(11):e78.
Eloy JA, Svider PF, Folbe AJ, Couldwell WT, Liu JK. Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in neurological surgery. J Neurosurg. 2014;120(1):185-190.
Radvansky BM, Farver WT, Svider PF, Eloy JA, Gubenko YA, Eloy JD. A comparison of plaintiff and defense expert witness qualifications in malpractice litigation in anesthesiology. Anesth Analg. 2015;120(6):1369-1374.
Brenner RJ. The expert witness: understanding the rationale. J Am Coll Radiol. 2007;4(9):612-616.
Klee CH, Friedman HJ. Neurolitigation: a perspective on the elements of expert testimony for extending the Daubert challenge. NeuroRehabilitation. 2001;16(2):79-85.
Morton H. Medical Liability/Malpractice Merit Affidavits and Expert Witnesses. National Conference of State Legislatures; 2021. Accessed June 12, 2022. https://www.ncsl.org/research/financial-services-and-commerce/medical-liability-malpractice-merit-affidavits-and-expert-witnesses.aspx
Evidence-Based Medicine. Johns Hopkins Medicine Division of General Internal Medicine. Accessed May 28, 2022. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/research/method/ebm.html .
Pozgar GD. Legal and Ethical Issues for Health Professionals. Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2019.
Zipursky BC. Reasonableness in and out of Negligence Law , 163 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2131.
Rich BA. The treating physician as expert witness: ethical and pragmatic considerations. Pain Med. 2006;7(5):460-463.
Association AM. PolicyFinder; 2022.
Surgeons ACo. Central Judiciary Committee; 2022.
Satiani B. Expert witness testimony: rules of engagement. Vasc Endovascular Surg. 2006;40(3):223-227.
Kaufman HH. The expert witness. Neither Frye nor Daubert solved the problem: what can be done? Sci Justice. 2001;41(1):7-20.
28 U.S.C. 702 - Testimony by Expert Witnesses. United States Congress; 2011.
General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997). In: Justia US Supreme Court; 1997.
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999). In: Justia US Supreme Court; 1999.
Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(7):629-636.
Rules for Neurosurgical Medical/Legal Expert Opinion Services. American Association of Neurological Surgeons; 2006.
NASS Expert Opinion and Witness Guidelines. North American Spine Society; 2015.
Conflicts and Expert Testimony. Lumbar Spine Research Society; 2021.