Expert Witnesses in Montana Medical Malpractice Cases
Experts are essential in medical malpractice cases. Without an expert witness, reaching the jury is often impossible, making it common for defense counsel to challenge the admissibility of expert testimony. This guide provides a checklist to ensure that both your experts and the defendants meet all legal qualifications. If you need assistance understanding these requirements or want to help build a strong case, don’t hesitate to contact a Bozeman personal injury lawyer from Beck, Amsed & Stalpes who can guide you through every step.
1. Confirm Your Expert’s Qualifications
Two main rules govern the admissibility of expert testimony in Montana medical malpractice cases: Mont. Code. Ann. §26-1-602 and Mont. R. Evid. 702. Ensure your expert meets these standards.
a. Mont. Code. Ann. §26-1-602
This statute has three parts. Here’s a breakdown:
i. Subsection One: Requirements for Testifying
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 states that:
(1) A person may not testify as an expert witness on issues relating to negligence and standards of care in a malpractice claim…unless they:
- Are licensed as a healthcare provider in at least one state, and
- Routinely treated the diagnosis or provided the treatment at issue, or
- Taught students about the condition or treatment within the last five years.
This rule has practical implications:
- Licensure: Verify that your expert is licensed to practice medicine in at least one state.
- Recent Experience: Confirm that within the last five years, your expert either treated the condition, provided the treatment at issue, or taught related subjects.
Example: In Beehler v. Eastern Radiological Associates, a case involving post-myelogram bacterial meningitis, the court allowed Dr. Patrick Joseph, an infectious disease expert, to testify. Dr. Joseph had not performed myelograms but had experience with infection prevention for these procedures, which met the standard of care requirements under this statute.
ii. Subsection Two: Physician Requirement for Certain Claims
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(2) specifies:
If the claim involves treatment by a physician, the expert witness must also be a physician.
This section is straightforward: when the case involves a doctor’s actions, you’ll need another doctor to serve as the expert.
iii. Subsection Three: Specialty-Specific Requirements
Mont. Code Ann. § 26-1-602(3) requires experts to be from the same specialty as the defendant unless standards are substantially similar.
Example: If the malpractice claim involves surgical standards specific to orthopedic surgery, your expert should ideally be an orthopedic surgeon. However, if the issue pertains to broader medical standards, such as infection control during surgery, an expert from another field (e.g., infectious disease) may qualify.
2. Assessing Admissibility Under Mont. R. Evid. 702
In addition to §26-1-602, expert testimony must meet the qualifications under Montana Rule of Evidence 702. This rule states:
A witness qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify as an expert if it helps the jury understand the evidence or determine a fact.
Reliability of Expert Testimony
Mont. R. Evid. 702 emphasizes three reliability criteria:
- Field Reliability: The field of expertise must be widely accepted.
- Expert Qualification: The expert’s knowledge or experience should be relevant to the case.
- Application of Expertise: The expert must apply their expertise reliably to the facts of the case, a point typically decided by the jury.
Example: In Harris v. Hanson, the court clarified that reliability in expert testimony involves not just qualifications but also whether the expert’s knowledge is correctly applied to case facts, which is ultimately a jury question.
Proper expert qualifications are essential to proceed in medical malpractice cases. Be sure your expert meets both the Montana Code and Rules of Evidence standards, whether through licensure, recent practice, familiarity with relevant standards of care, or alignment in specialty when needed. The key focus should always be on the specific act or omission at issue rather than solely on the expert’s or defendant’s specialty, ensuring your expert’s testimony holds up against scrutiny.