Working With Expert Witnesses

An expert's credentials matter, but credentials alone don't win a case. What matters is whether that expert's specific clinical background matches the facts you're litigating — the right specialty, the right patient population, and a perspective that will hold up under cross-examination.

I start from the clinical issue at the center of the case, not a generic specialty search. If the case turns on post-operative monitoring, I'm looking for someone whose practice centers on exactly that — not simply a surgeon whose title matches the injury.

Vetting goes beyond confirming board certification. It means reviewing prior testimony history, checking for conflicts, and assessing whether the expert communicates clearly enough to be persuasive in front of a jury — a brilliant clinician who can't explain their reasoning in plain language is a liability on the stand, not an asset.

Once an expert is retained, my work continues: making sure they have a complete, well-organized record and chronology to work from, so their opinion is built on the same clinical facts I've already verified — not a summary that leaves out the detail that matters.

A well-prepared expert, working from a clean chronology and a clear standards-of-care analysis, is one of the strongest assets a case can have.