Comparison of Plaintiff and Defendant Expert Witness Qualification in Malpractice Litigation in Otolaryngology

Eloy, Jean Anderson MD
Svider, Peter F.
Patel, Dharti
Setzen, Michael MD
Baredes, Soly MD

¹Department of Otolaryngology-Head & Neck Surgery, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA²Department of Neurological Surgery, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA³Center for Skull Base and Pituitary Surgery, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey, USA⁴Rhinology Section, North Shore University Hospital, Manhasset, New York, USA⁵Department of Otolaryngology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jean Anderson Eloy, MD, Associate Professor and Vice Chairman, Director of Rhinology and Sinus Surgery, Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, UMDNJ-New Jersey Medical School, 90 Bergen St, Suite 8100, Newark, NJ 07103, USA. Email: [email protected]

Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article.

Received January 7, 2013; revised February 19, 2013; accepted February 6, 2013.

Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery 148(5):p 764-769, May 2013. | DOI: 10.1177/0194599813481943

Abstract

Objective.

Malpractice litigation contributes to rising health care costs in the United States. The role of expert witness testimony has been controversial in the past, with medical professional societies issuing statements regarding ethical obligations of physicians. Our objectives were to examine the relative qualifications of expert witnesses testifying on behalf of plaintiffs vs defendants.

Study Design and Setting.

Analysis of expert witness and physician demographic data available on several databases.

Methods.

The Westlaw legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, New York) was searched for otolaryngologist expert witness testimony. Length of experience, practice setting, and subspecialty training information were obtained from hospital, practice, departmental, and state licensing board sites. Scholarly impact was assessed using calculation of the h-index from the Scopus database.

Results.

Plaintiff expert witnesses had significantly less experience than those testifying for defendants (31.8 vs 35.4 years, P = .047) and lower scholarly impact (h = 6.3 vs 10, P = .045). A significantly higher proportion of defendant witnesses were in academic practice (49.3% vs 31.7%, P = .042). No differences were detected in postresidency fellowship training patterns.

Conclusion.

Upon comparison of otolaryngologist expert witnesses, practitioners testifying on behalf of plaintiffs had statistically fewer years of experience, had a lower scholarly impact, and were less likely to work in an academic setting. Otolaryngologists who repeatedly served as expert witnesses were more likely to be testifying on behalf of plaintiffs than defendants. Professional societies may need to frequently update guidelines on expert witness testimony and address the ethical obligations of practitioners.