The physician expert witness and the U.S. Supreme court--an epidemiologic approach.
It is a fact of life that the physician is occasionally called upon to provide Expert Witness evidence. This is clearly distinct from evidence of a participatory nature where the physician is a party to the act by virtue of the doctor-patient relationship. The purpose of this presentation is to alert the physician to new criteria, imposed by the court, for acceptance of Expert Testimony. Prior to March 23, 1999, expert witness testimony fell into three categories, Scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge. Scientific knowledge included the conclusions that could be subjected to analysis of a statistical nature, or could be validated by methodology such as epidemiologic criteria. Technical knowledge was based on factors such as mechanical or stress analysis utilized in engineering. Other "specialized knowledge" could be based on experiential data and information not necessarily subject to epidemiologic or other scientific analysis. Therefore, the physician presented his reasoning often based on years of professional practice and publication in journals of clinical practice. On March 23rd 1999, the Supreme Court of the United States changed the criteria for all categories stating that there is "no relevant distinction between 'scientific' knowledge' and 'technical' or 'other specialized knowledge' in Federal Rule of Evidence 702. This momentous decision [Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, (97-1709), 131 F.3d 1433) reversed.] referred back to a previous case [Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc., 509 US. 579,589], which established four criteria based on methods of analysis for t he courts, and was now extended for all expert evidence. Thus the area of expert witness evidence was changed by this momentous act placing the judge as arbiter of all expert evidence, including that of the physician. This paper will offer a brief review and an analysis of the significance of this for the professional involved in the legal system as an expert witness.