ABFM Legal Responsibilities and Expert Testimony 2 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which factor is NOT required for expert testimony to be admitted?
- The expert's testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data
- The testimony must be the product of reliable principles and methods
- The expert must have published peer-reviewed articles on the topic (Correct answer)
- The expert must have reliably applied the principles to the facts of the case
Correct answer: The expert must have published peer-reviewed articles on the topic
FRE 702 requires sufficient facts/data, reliable methods, and proper application, but does NOT require prior publication.
Question 2: A forensic medicine expert who overstates the certainty of forensic evidence during testimony may be subject to which professional consequence?
- Increased credibility with the jury
- Sanctions, loss of licensure, or ethics violations (Correct answer)
- Automatic disqualification from future cases
- Criminal contempt charges only
Correct answer: Sanctions, loss of licensure, or ethics violations
Overstating certainty violates professional ethics codes and can result in sanctions, board complaints, or loss of certification.
Question 3: In a civil malpractice case, the standard for expert witness testimony regarding the standard of care is typically based on:
- What a reasonable expert would do in an academic setting
- What a reasonably competent practitioner in the same specialty would do (Correct answer)
- The highest possible level of care available anywhere
- The expert's personal preferred practice method
Correct answer: What a reasonably competent practitioner in the same specialty would do
The standard of care in malpractice is measured against what a reasonably competent practitioner in the same specialty would do under similar circumstances.
Question 4: Which term describes an expert witness who is paid a contingency fee based on the outcome of litigation?
- A retained expert
- A treating physician expert
- An improper expert arrangement (Correct answer)
- A court-appointed neutral expert
Correct answer: An improper expert arrangement
Contingency fee arrangements for expert witnesses are considered improper and unethical because they create a financial bias toward a particular outcome.
Question 5: The Daubert standard replaced which earlier standard for admissibility of scientific expert testimony in federal courts?
- The Frye general acceptance standard (Correct answer)
- The FRE 403 balancing test
- The Kumho technical expert standard
- The Brady disclosure requirement
Correct answer: The Frye general acceptance standard
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993) replaced the Frye 'general acceptance' standard in federal courts.
Question 6: When a forensic physician serves as both a treating physician AND an expert witness in the same case, which concern arises?
- Increased fee potential
- Dual role conflict that may compromise objectivity (Correct answer)
- Automatic strengthening of the plaintiff's case
- Waiver of physician-patient privilege only
Correct answer: Dual role conflict that may compromise objectivity
Serving dual roles as treating physician and expert witness creates a conflict because a treater's advocacy for the patient may compromise the objectivity required of an expert.
Question 7: Which type of expert report is required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2)(B) for retained experts?
- A verbal summary provided at deposition
- A written signed report disclosing opinions, basis, and qualifications (Correct answer)
- A brief letter outlining only the expert's credentials
- An affidavit filed with the court clerk
Correct answer: A written signed report disclosing opinions, basis, and qualifications
FRCP 26(a)(2)(B) requires retained experts to provide a complete written report signed by the witness, including all opinions, the basis for them, and the expert's qualifications.
ABFM Legal Responsibilities and Expert Testimony 2
Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which factor is NOT required for expert testimony to be admitted?