Introduction: Expert witnesses provide a valuable societal service, interpreting complex pieces of evidence that may be misunderstood by non-medical laypersons. The role of medical expert witness testimony and potential professional repercussions, however, has been controversial in the medical community. The objective of this analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation.

Methods: Malpractice litigation involving expert testimony from neurological surgeons was obtained using the Westlaw legal database. Length of practice, scholarly impact (as measured by the h-index), practice setting, and the frequency of testifying were obtained for these experts from various online resources including the Scopus database, online medical facility and practice sites, and state medical licensing boards.

Results: Neurological surgeons testifying in 326 cases since 2008 averaged over 30 years of experience (34.5 years for plaintiff witnesses vs. 33.2 for defense witnesses, P = 0.35). Defense witnesses had statistically higher scholarly impact than plaintiff witnesses (h-index = 8.76 vs 5.46, P < 0.001). A greater proportion of defense witnesses were involved in academic practice (46.1% vs 24.4%, P < 0.001). Those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs were more likely to testify multiple times (20.4% vs 12.6%).

Conclusions: Practitioners testifying for either side tend to be very experienced, while those testifying on behalf of defendants have significantly higher scholarly impact and are more likely to practice in an academic setting, potentially indicating a greater level of expertise. Plaintiff experts were more likely to testify multiple times. Surgical societies may need to clarify the necessary qualifications and ethical responsibilities of those who choose to testify.

Patient Care: The objective of this analysis was to characterize the expertise of neurological surgeons testifying as expert witnesses in malpractice litigation.

Learning Objectives: 1. Understand how to calculate the h-index and use it as a measure of scholarly impact and academic productivity 2. Examine expert witness testimony from neurological surgeons in malpractice litigation. 3. Determine the differences in scholarly activity of expert witnesses as measured by the h-index between those testifying on behalf of plaintiffs vs. defendants.

References: 1. Eloy JA, Svider PF, Patel D, et al: Comparison of plaintiff and defendant expert witness qualification in malpractice litigation in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2013 Mar 12; Epub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1177/0194599813481943. 2. Lee J, Kraus KL, Couldwell WT: Use of the h index in neurosurgery. Clinical article. J Neurosurg 111:387-392, 2009 3. Svider PF, Husain Q, Kovalerchik O, et al: Determining legal responsibility in otolaryngology: a review of 44 trials since 2008. Am J Otolaryngol, 2013 Jan 15; Epub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1016/j.amjoto.2012.12.005 4. Svider PF, Pashkova AA, Choudhry ZA, et al: Comparison of scholarly impact among surgical specialties: an examination of 2,429 academic surgeons. Laryngoscope, 2013 Feb 16; Epub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1002/lary.23951 5. Svider PF, Pashkova AA, Husain Q, et al: Determination of legal responsibility in iatrogenic tracheal and laryngeal stenosis. Laryngoscope, 2013 Feb 12; Epub ahead of print; DOI: 10.1002/lary.23997