This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Conflict of Interest  • Law and Medicine  • Alert me on articles by topic

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

In Reply: The responses by Dr Larriviere and colleagues and Drs Hartz and Green to our Commentary provide useful insights from physicians and lawyers with direct experience in efforts to oversee the conduct of physicians who act as expert witnesses in medical malpractice litigation. The ultimate goal of any such oversight is promoting accurate, high-quality testimony. Sound expert testimony gives plaintiffs who have suffered injury due to negligent care the best chance of receiving appropriate compensation for their losses; it also helps guard against the possibility that defendants' conduct will be judged on the basis of faulty theories of causality or misrepresentations of the standard of care.

Based on our limited investigation of programs for reviewing expert witness conduct that are housed within medical professional organizations, we have been generally impressed by the rigor of their procedures and thoughtfulness of the people involved in implementing them. At the same time, . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, JD
akesselheim@partners.org
Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Boston, Massachusetts

David M. Studdert, LLB, ScD
Faculty of Law
University of Melbourne
Melbourne, Australia

RELATED LETTERS

Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony
Dan Larriviere, Michael A. Williams, and Murray Sagsveen
JAMA. 2008;299(14):1667.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Regulating Physician Expert Witness Testimony
Arthur J. Hartz and Michael Green
JAMA. 2008;299(14):1667-1668.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT