HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Summers, J. B. Articles by Berlin, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Summers, J. B. Articles by Berlin, L. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Disciplinary Action by North Carolina Medical Board Reversed

University of South Alabama Mobile, AL 36616
Medical College of Georgia Augusta, GA 30912

The case mentioned by Dr. Berlin in his recent article on false testimony and the expert witness [1], in which the North Carolina Medical Board revoked the medical license of a Florida-based neurosurgeon over expert testimony given in a malpractice case, has recently been reversed [2].

Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens of Wake County (NC) rejected most of the medical board's grounds for revoking the license of the neurosurgeon [3]. The judge did agree that the physician's testimony alleging that a doctor in the case had falsified records was not a protected opinion, and this issue was sent back to the board to reconsider for disciplinary action. At the time of this ruling, the board had not decided if it would appeal the actions that were reversed.

Although some may consider this ruling an affirmation that physicians should not worry about testimony given in medical malpractice cases, we think that this issue is far from closed. Whereas physicians should not necessarily feel reluctant to serve as expert witnesses, more thought to the expression of opinions and facts in malpractice cases would be a useful strategy to avert accusations of tainted, biased, or untruthful testimony.

References

1. Berlin L. Bearing false witness. AJR2003; 180:1515 –1521[Free Full Text]
2. Adams D. Doctor loses license over expert testimony. Am Med News 2002;45:8 ,10
3. Adams D. N.C. license discipline case reversed. Am Med News 2003;46:13

Reply

Rush North Shore Medical Center Skokie, IL 60076

I agree with Drs. Summers and Kaminski that the North Carolina court's reversal of the state medical board's revocation of a neurosurgeon's medical license for inappropriate expert witness testimony should not be interpreted as an affirmation that physicians have free reign to render expert testimony that is inappropriate or inaccurate. As I indicated in the article [1], those state medical boards that have attempted to discipline physicians for rendering false courtroom testimony have met with varying results: one has succeeded, two have failed. Nevertheless, other state medical licensing boards have indicated that they intend to pursue disciplinary action against physicians who provide inaccurate or misleading medical testimony [2, 3].

I hope that all radiologists take note of the admonition contained in the last sentence of Summers and Kaminski's letter.

References

1. Berlin L. Bearing false witness. AJR2003; 180:1515 –1521
2. Adams D. Doctor loses license over expert testimony. Am Med News 2002;45:8 ,10
3. [No authors listed] "Inexpert" witness loses license. ISMIE Mutual Insurance Company Newsletter2002; 3:4

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Summers, J. B. Articles by Berlin, L. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Summers, J. B. Articles by Berlin, L. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?