2. Medical Specialty - Conflict of Interest in review of defendant vs plaintiff's experts?

Some expert medical witnesses testifying for the plaintiff position believe that their medical specialty review committees are less than even handed in their scrutiny of plaintiff versus defense experts and that they may not get a fair evaluation before this panel. Whether such complaints have substance, the mission of the medical specialty organization is to promote the interests of the specialists it represents. With the continuing crisis in medical malpractice insurance and the initiatives being developed to combat it, these organizations will logically be focused on defense of their members and reduction of liability.  A conflict of interest therefore exists between the mission of the medical specialty organization in promoting and defending the interests of its members, and its additional focus on expert consultant testimony peer review.  This creates a potential conflict of interest as to the expert medical consultant who, as an agent of the court, through analysis of the standards of care for a specific circumstance, render an opinion supportive of malpractice liability for a colleague.  Medical specialty review panels have to tread a tightrope in their evaluations and attempted discipline of expert medical witnesses because suspension of membership and other disciplinary measures upon experts is often followed by litigation against the specialty organization by the accused expert alleging bias etc.¹ The financial and organizational structure of the non-profit medical specialty organization is not designed to sustain constant litigation defense against specific members. For these reasons, activity by these committees cannot be expected to adequately deal with the issue of the aberrant medical expert witness. In addition, none of these measures provide for regular review of the expert medical witness, since these special committees only review testimony as a result of special referral and complaint.