Expert witnesses: Neuroradiologists' perspectives

Nara P. Pereira, Jonathan Lewin, Kelly P. Yousem, David M. Yousem

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Results: The survey found that 1,301 of 4,357 answered at least one survey question. Five hundred twenty seven of 1194 (44.1%) of respondents had experience as expert witnesses. Most offer to testify on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendant physicians (324 of 465; 69.7%). Some do not testify/review cases on behalf of a plaintiff because they do not think that physicians should testify against other physicians, even if negligence is a factor (40 of 198; 20.2%). This reason was the most common for not agreeing to be an expert witness for a plaintiff, for all age groups. Of those expressing an opinion, 312 of 874 (35.7%) of neuroradiologists feel negatively about expert witnesses, whereas 434 of 874 (49.6%) say they serve a purpose, and 105 of 874 (12.0%) feel they should be commended for their work on behalf of the justice system.

Methods: A survey was distributed to the 4,357 e-mail addresses of the members of the American Society of Neuroradiology with questions about expert witnesses.

Conclusions: Of neuroradiologists answering the survey, nearly half have served as expert witnesses, and most feel comfortable testifying for both plaintiffs and defendants. Substantive negative perceptions (35.7%) of expert witnesses were found.

Purpose: Physician malpractice expert witnesses may testify on behalf of physicians or patients. The goal of the study was to assess the experience of neuroradiologists as expert witnesses and their attitudes about such testimony.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)984-988
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of the American College of Radiology
Issue number10
StatePublished - Oct 1 2014


  • Medicolegal
  • expert witness
  • litigation
  • malpractice
  • neuroradiology

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging


Dive into the research topics of 'Expert witnesses: Neuroradiologists' perspectives'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this