Interesting new development in Maryland case

[lbamdjd]

Maryland Court of Appeals to reconsider expert witness rules

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/11/16/prsa1116.htm

The issue is whether a retired physician who has not practiced in 5
years (in France yet), nor performed the procedure in question, should
be able to testify as to the standard of care in Maryland because he
claims to spend a lot of time reading journals...for some reason the
Court after initially ruling in the case has decided to reconsider
it.

The issue actually is, if a state law requires that a physician
offering expert testimony spend no more than 20% of his time pursuing
expert witness testimony, what activities qualify for the remaining
80%.

[lbamdjd]

OK, today the Court reissued the decision and apparently the only
change is that the CJ added his name to the majority. (Appeals is the
Supreme Court of MD, btw).

More particulars (if interested) are available at this lawyer's blog:
http://www.marylandinjurylawyerblog.com/2009/10/new_maryland_medical_malpracti.html

The interesting part is that the witness actually admitted under oath
that he is a professional expert. In full disclosure, this article
reveals that he had completed a distinguished career including stints
at MGH and Hopkins; but at the time of trial was only licensed in
France "to prescribe for family" (something that would be illegal in
MD, incidentally). His sole source of income was a pension and
testimony.

So this is evidently a done deal in Maryland. Professional experts
(defined as those who spend more than 20% of their professional time
doing EWT) are no longer welcome there.

And as we used to say in CCEMT, becoming a professional expert is not
an honorable substitution or supplement to an inadequate pension
plan.