Original Article

Extent and Determinants of Physician Participation in Expert Witness Testimony

Authors: Bimal H. Ashar, MD, Redonda G. Miller, MD, Neil R. Powe, MD, MPH, MBA

Abstract

Objectives: In the recent past, law firms have had difficulties in finding physicians to review malpractice cases and serve as expert witnesses. Over the last few years, however, many clinicians have had a decline in their income, causing some physicians to seek alternative sources of revenue such as the review of legal cases. The purpose of this study was to qualify and quantify the extent of physician participation in legal activities.


Methods: We conducted a survey of 1,000 Maryland internal medicine physicians. The survey consisted of 24 items designed to collect information on demographics, practice patterns, income variables, and participation in legal review.


Results: Twenty-four percent of our respondents reported engaging in expert witness testimony/review to supplement their incomes. Engagement was significantly associated with internal medicine subspecialty practice, academic practice, a self-perception that personal income was higher than the income of colleagues, and being in practice for 11 to 20 years. Economic factors were not found to be associated with engaging in these activities.


Conclusions: Physician participation in legal review and expert witness activities is significant and appears not to be determined by economic factors. Both the positive effects of such participation on the legal system and the potential ethical concerns require further study.


Key Points


* A number of physicians engage in legal review and expert witness testimony to supplement their incomes.


* The motivation for such participation does not appear to be based on decreases in income or income satisfaction.


* The benefits that may arise from widespread involvement of physicians in the review process must be weighed against the potential for conflicts of interest that can accompany remuneration for services.

This content is limited to qualifying members.

Existing members, please login first

If you have an existing account please login now to access this article or view purchase options.

Purchase only this article ($25)

Create a free account, then purchase this article to download or access it online for 24 hours.

Purchase an SMJ online subscription ($75)

Create a free account, then purchase a subscription to get complete access to all articles for a full year.

Purchase a membership plan (fees vary)

Premium members can access all articles plus recieve many more benefits. View all membership plans and benefit packages.

References

1. Levy DA. Physicians are being persuaded to participate as medical witnesses. Ann Intern Med1996;125:I-40.
 
2. American College of Physicians. Guidelines for the physician expert witness. Ann Intern Med1990;113:789.
 
3. Professional Liability Committee of the American College of Surgeons. Statement on the physician expert witness. Bull Am Coll Surg 2000;85:24–25.
 
4. Gibson JM, Schwartz RL. Physicians and lawyers: science, art, and conflict. Am J Law Med1980;6:173–182.
 
5. Moser JW. Socioeconomic Characteristics of Medical Practice 1997/98. Chicago, Center for Health Policy Research, American Medical Association, 2000, pp 5–14.
 
6. Goldberg JH. Primary care earning plummet. Med Econ 2000;77:141–157.
 
7. Greenberg M. Developing alternative revenue sources. Med Group Manage J 2000;47:26–29.
 
8. Pham HH, Devers KJ, May JH, et al. Financial pressures spur physician entrepreneurialism. Health Aff 2004;23:70–81.
 
9. Weintraub MI. Expert witness testimony. Neurol Clin 1999;17:363–369.
 
10. McAbee GN. Improper expert witness testimony. J Leg Med 1998;19:257–272.
 
11. McCrary SV, Swanson JW, Perkins HS, et al. Treatment decisions for terminally ill patients: physicians’ legal defensiveness and knowledge of medical law. Law Med Health Care 1992;20:364–376.
 
12. Darvall L, McMahon M, Piterman L. Medico-legal knowledge of general practitioners: disjunctions, errors and uncertainties. J Law Med 2001;9:167–184.
 
13. Thompson DF. Understanding financial conflicts of interest. N Engl J Med 1993;329:573–576.
 
14. May WF. Money and the medical profession. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 1997;7:1–13.
 
15. American Medical Association. Expert witness testimony (H-265.992). Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/apps/pf_new/pf_online?f_n=resultLink&doc=policyfiles/HnE/H-265.992.HTM&s_t=expert+witness+testimony&catg=AMA/HnE&&nth=1&&st_p=0&nth=3&. Accessed April 23, 2004.
 
16. Weintraub MI. Expert witness testimony. A time for self-regulation? Neurology 1995;45:855–858.
 
17. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 1997;50:1129–1136.
 
18. Cummings SM, Savitz LA, Konrad TR. Reported response rates to mailed physician questionnaires.Health Serv Res 2001;35:1347–1355.