What is the difference between a treating physician and a retained expert witness?

This practice will not do both in the same case. Treating and then being retained to opine broadly on the same patient trades the strongest feature of the record for a wider scope nobody needed.

What makes a medical expert opinion hold up in court?

• A stated method applied the same way it is applied to patients who are not in litigation.
• Reliance on tests validated for the purpose they are being used for, and an explicit statement of what each test does not establish — see objective corroboration.
• Consideration of alternative explanations, documented at the time rather than raised at deposition.
• Evidence quoted at the level it actually sits. A Level III recommendation described as a Level III recommendation survives; the same recommendation described as proof does not — see what the evidence actually says.
• Stated uncertainty. An opinion with no acknowledged limits is the easiest kind to attack.

What questions should be put to the other side’s medical expert?

These come out of the medicine, not out of advocacy, and they are the ones the material on this site is built to support.

• Which population was the recovery timetable derived from, and did it include patients with this metabolic profile?
• What is the prevalence of this imaging finding in people without pain, at this age?
• Which structure does the opinion identify as the pain generator, and what test identified it?
• For a null result on a treatment: what platelet dose and leukocyte content were pooled, and did the constituent trials meet the field’s own reporting standard? See dose and preparation.
• Which professional body issued the coverage determination being relied on? See coverage is not evidence.

This practice is not aligned to a side. Its obligation runs to the patient’s health and safety, which is the same reason it is not beholden to any position that would keep it from seeing what is actually there. We do not offer opinions on liability, we do not accept a referral or a review conditioned on reaching a particular conclusion, and we will say plainly when the evidence does not support the claim — whichever party was hoping otherwise.

Frequently asked questions

Do you testify?

As a treating physician, about patients treated here, yes. We do not accept retained-expert engagements in cases where we are the treating physician.

Do you charge for testimony?

Time is billed at a stated rate that does not vary with the content of the testimony or the outcome.

Will you review another physician’s care?

No. This practice does not offer standard-of-care opinions about other clinicians.

What if your opinion changes on new records?

Then it changes, in writing, with the reason. An opinion that never moves regardless of new information is not an opinion.

What is a medical expert witness?

A medical expert witness is a physician who testifies to a medical opinion. A retained expert forms that opinion for the litigation, with a wider permitted scope and a compensation relationship that will be explored in front of the jury. A treating physician testifies to what was found, what was done, why, and what happened, from a record that predates the dispute.

What are the risks of being an expert witness?

For a treating physician, the main risk is giving up the record’s strongest feature: tests ordered because the patient needed them. That asset is lost the moment the physician starts arguing the case, which is why this practice will not treat a patient and then serve as a retained expert in the same case. An opinion with no stated limits is also the easiest kind to attack.

Related reading

• Records that survive cross
• Reading an independent examination
• Objective corroboration
• Dose and preparation
• Causation and apportionment