Profession
N.Y. case with questioned expert witness testimony can go forward
NEWS IN BRIEF — Posted July 17, 2006
A New York appeals court this summer declined to rehear a case doctors challenged saying that the initial ruling lowered the standards on expert witness testimony allowed in medical liability lawsuits. The ruling clears the way for the lawsuit to go to trial.
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court ruled in April that medical experts did not need to use peer-reviewed medical literature to show that their opinion was accepted in the scientific community. Judges found that a trial court applied the testimony rule "too restrictively" when it dismissed the case, Zito v. Zabarsky.
The appeals court allowed the case to go forward based largely on a single incident report to support Patricia Zito's claim that an alleged excessive dose of cholesterol medication caused her to develop an autoimmune disease. The physician has denied the accusations.
Doctors sought to overturn the appellate court's ruling, fearing it could set a dangerous precedent for enabling unreliable "junk science" to influence a jury. The Medical Society of the State of New York and the AMA filed a friend-of-the-court brief, contending that state law requires strict review of expert testimony.
MSSNY General Counsel Donald Moy said, "We feel the issues are important and could exacerbate the liability crisis if the court is going to relax the rules of causation, and we will continue to monitor the case."
Note: This item originally appeared at http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2006/07/17/prbf0717.htm.
