22. How do the EMC expert testimony review procedures compare with the “Medical Court” model of selecting experts?

The “Medical Court” model to litigate medical malpractice cases with some model variations includes a special court hearing medical malpractice cases requiring the selection of experts by the judge to provide medical knowledge to the jury. The judge chooses from a list of experts that he has pre-selected. Since the judge usually has no specific medical training, he cannot discriminate the accuracy of testimony of the experts as to the standards of care, relying on his personal experience with the expert and the expert’s resume. If there is a preference for plaintiff or defense leaning experts, it will be expressed in the selections of the judge. There is no opportunity for physicians to challenge expert testimony in this model and erroneous testimony with a bias against or for defendant physicians cannot be corrected by future witness de-selection. No independent evaluation of the expert’s testimony takes place. Estimates are that “Trial Courts” will use small groups of experts regularly in this model. The EMC expert medical witness process utilizes potential review of expert testimony in a voluntary process by all experts joining EMC to provide a mechanism to monitor prior testimony for accuracy and adherence to the national standards of care of each specialty. Experts found to be testifying incorrectly on a consistent basis by their colleagues are identified as such and will tend to be de-selected as expert witnesses in future cases. The negative review decision is also available to the judge in certifying experts for trial who will tend not to certify experts found to have been testifying incorrectly in past cases. Since this is a peer review process by specialty, EMC experts will be diligent in their testimony to avoid such negative reviews by their colleagues. Mainstream, generally accepted techniques of expert analysis will be the norm and fringe opinions not generally supported by the specialty will decrease. Trial judges will increase their confidence in experts voluntarily undergoing this process. This process offers a larger pool of experts available for review that will also help assure consistency in the expert process. Therefore, even in states where the “Medical Court” becomes the norm, EMC is available to review and provide assistance to the Trial Court.