Robert Ambrogi has more discussion on that case from Utah (Apr. 8 ) in which a litigant is suing an expert witness who changed his mind on the eve of trial about his willingness to support a medical malpractice suit, resulting in an adverse outcome. He mentions this site and quotes Ted, who
believes that [dissenting Tenth Circuit Judge Neil] Gorsuch is correct in his analysis. “The incentives of expert witnesses to give independent truthful opinions are already distorted, and should not be distorted further.”
Beyond that, the court appears not to have thought through the consequences of its decision, he says. “Every cross-examination of an expert at deposition should now include questions relating to the expert’s fear of being sued.”
(Bullseye newsletter, May; sidebar on state-by-state immunities for experts).
Comments are closed.