DETERMINING THE APPROPRIATE MEDICAL SPECIALTY 

We all know that hiring an underqualified medical expert is not a good approach. It turns out that hiring an overqualified expert may not be the right approach, either.   As pointed out recently in the Florida BAR News, hiring the wrong type of expert can result in "a great opinion from someone not qualified to render it!"

For example, let's look at two specialties -- family practice and cardiology -- in a hypothetical situation. Family practice and internal medicine physicians are both considered primary care specialties, while cardiologists are internists with additional sub-specialty expertise in cardiology.  Let's say that both have been caring for the plaintiff and thus both are named as defendants. The plaintiff has been experiencing cardiac problems and was first seen by the family practitioner and subsequently referred to the cardiologist, but plaintiff attorney alleges that the family practitioner waited too long to refer plaintiff to the cardiologist. Why not just get a cardiologist's opinion? 

This might not be the best approach, particularly if the central issue is the delay in referral by the family practitioner. The reasoning involves relevant standards of care. The standards of care ascribed to the family practitioner are not the same as those expected from the cardiologist. There is the risk that if plaintiff attorney has the cardiologist opine with respect to the family practitioner's care, he may be attacked by defense counsel for applying inappropriately high standards of care. 

In this case, it may be preferable to have a family practice physician render the initial opinion with respect to the standard(s) of care owed by the primary care defendant. This does not preclude obtaining a cardiology opinion later on, depending on the issues involved.