Question

In what circumstances is expert testimony unnecessary in medical malpractice? Have you ever know of or been involved with such a case? Without disclosing identity of the parties, share that story. (250 words)

Answer 1

In what circumstances is expert testimony unnecessary in medical malpractice?

• Almost all medical malpractice cases require testimony from a medical expert.
• The facts are usually too complex for non-doctors to determine if the patient's doctor should be held liable for the patient's injury. In fact, in many states you must get a medical expert's opinion before you can initiate a lawsuit.

• Sometimes, the medical malpractice is so obvious that a medical expert is not needed in order for the jury to understand the facts. The classic example is when a surgeon leaves a sponge in the patient.

• This rule (called res ipsa loquitur, or "the thing speaks for itself") has two basic components. An expert witness is not necessary when:

  • only the doctor or medical staff had control over whatever it was that caused the injury, and
  • the injury could only have been caused by the doctor's failure to adhere to the normal standard of care.

• The common knowledge rule holds that notwithstanding the general prerequisite for expert testimony to establish the standard of care and its breach in medical malpractice cases, such expert testimony is not required when the subject matter of the allegedly substandard conduct is within the common knowledge of non-medically-trained persons, or in other words, fully comprehensible to ordinary non-medical members of the public.

• Some cases warranting application of the common knowledge rule seem relatively straightforward. Consider, for instance,

  • a situation in which it is alleged that a dentist extracts the wrong tooth,

  • veterinarian operates on the wrong horse,

  • health care provider with responsibility for removing an instrument or device fails to remove it from inside the patient.

Example:

During my work as a specialty nurse in a hospital i have encountered a case of medical negligence. A patient got admitted for knee replacement in his right leg. all necessary investigation as well as preparation done for the procedure. during the operative session the wrong knee i.e. left knee replacement surgery has been done. When the matter came into notice the hospital authority including the physician convince the patint to undergo a second surgery of the affected leg. The patient was taken back again and the second replacement done without any financial cost to the patient. even all all the expenses pertaining to patient treatment was free of cost. this was a simple case of negligence but patient party was not very financially strong to file a case against the hospital and they were also referred by some doctor known to the hospital. hence it was not showed up against the hospital or doctor.