Court Discusses One-Expert Rule In Malpractice Cases: One-Expert Rule
Arizona’s One-Expert Rule in Arizona medical malpractice cases states: “Generally. Unless the parties agree or the court orders otherwise for good cause, each side is presumptively entitled to call only one retained or specially employed expert to testify on an issue. When there are multiple parties on a side and those parties cannot agree on which expert to call on an issue, the court may designate the expert to be called or, for good cause, allow more than one expert to be called.” Rule 26(b)(4)(F)(i).
The issue decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Arizona (“Arizona Supreme Court”) in its opinion filed on July 8, 2022 was whether defendants who present testimony by treating physicians on the standard of care they provided, in addition to the testimony of a retained or specially employed expert on the standard of care issue, violate the One-Expert Rule. The Arizona Supreme Court stated: “We hold that defendants do not violate the One-Expert Rule when offering the testimony of a treating physician on the standard of care, in addition to that of a retained or specially employed expert, when the testimony is based on the treating physician’s observations and personal participation in providing treatment to the plaintiff.”
The plaintiff (Haught) argued throughout the trial that the defense elicited expert testimony from the treating physicians, thereby violating the One-Expert Rule. Specifically, Haught argued that by asking questions he characterized as hypothetical, the defendants elicited testimony that went beyond the treating physicians’ personal knowledge of the care they provided, rendering them expert witnesses. Therefore, because the treating physicians testified to the same issues as the defendants’ retained experts, the defendants presented more experts than allowed.
The Arizona Supreme Court explained: “a fact witness may also offer expert opinion testimony without violating the One-Expert Rule when the witness’ testimony is based on personal observations and actions. Therefore, the dispositive inquiry is whether the treating physicians testified based on their observations and actions in treating Haught, regardless of whether in explaining their treatment decisions they also offered opinions about the standard of care … Because the treating physicians’ testimony concerning the standard of care, including their expert opinions, was based on personal observations and personal participation in Haught’s treatment, the defendants did not violate the One-Expert Rule in presenting their testimony, even if the defense also presented standard-of-care testimony from another retained expert. The trial court correctly declined to find a violation of the One-Expert Rule.”
Source McDaniel v. Payson Healthcare, Inc., No. CV-20-0333-PR.
If you or a loved one have been injured as a result of medical malpractice in Arizona or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Arizona medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.