Massachusetts High Court Rules on Applicability of Daubert-Lanigan to Medmal Testimony on Standard of Care

This past week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court was called upon to decide whether the state's Daubert-Lanigan standard for expert testimony applies to experts testifying on the standard of care in medical malpractice cases. Its answer? Yes and no. From the opinion:

We agree with the plaintiffs that expert testimony concerning the standard of care generally need not be subject to a Daubert-Lanigan analysis. Such testimony is based on the expert's knowledge of the care provided by other qualified physicians, not on scientific theory or research: "How physicians practice medicine is a fact, not an opinion derived from data or other scientific inquiry by employing a recognized methodology." Cramm, Ascertaining Customary Care in Malpractice Cases: Asking Those Who Know, 37 Wake Forest L. Rev. 699, 725 (2002). However, when the proponent of expert testimony incorporates scientific fact into a statement concerning the standard of care, that science may be the subject of a Daubert-Lanigan inquiry. Because expert opinion about increased risk, like diagnosis and causation, involves the application of science to patient care, Daubert-Lanigan would be applied to that portion of an expert's testimony, requiring the proponent of such evidence, if challenged, to demonstrate its relevance and reliability.

See Palandjian v. Foster, No. 09562 (Mass. Feb. 21, 2006).