Expert witness testimony in urology malpractice litigation

Area of Science:

• Medical Law
• Urology
• Expert Witness Testimony

Background:

• Medical malpractice litigation is a growing concern in healthcare reform discussions.
• Physicians, including urologists, are frequently called upon to serve as expert witnesses.
• Defining the qualifications of medical expert witnesses remains a contentious issue.

Purpose of the Study:

• To assess the credentials of urologists serving as expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases.
• To compare the experience, practice setting, and scholarly impact of plaintiff versus defendant urologist expert witnesses.

Main Methods:

• A comprehensive search of the Westlaw legal database was conducted for medical malpractice litigation.
• Data on years of experience and practice setting were collected for urologists from public and academic sources.
• Scholarly impact was quantified using the h-index, calculated via the Scopus database.

Main Results:

• Urologist expert witnesses for both plaintiffs and defendants averaged over 30 years of experience.
• Plaintiff experts had slightly more experience (35.7 years) than defendant experts (32.2 years).
• Defendant experts demonstrated a higher h-index (10.2 vs. 6.8) and were more frequently in academic practice (60% vs. 39%).

Conclusions:

• While both plaintiff and defendant urologist experts possess extensive experience, defendant experts exhibit greater scholarly influence and academic affiliation.
• The findings suggest a need for organizations like the American Urological Association to review current expert witness testimony guidelines.
• Particular attention may be warranted for urologists who frequently provide expert testimony.