Medical malpractice trials in Georgia depend on expert testimony in a way that most other civil actions do not. The standard of care, the alleged breach of that standard, and the causal connection between the breach and the patient’s injury are all matters that require specialized knowledge beyond the experience of a lay jury. Georgia evidence law, codified primarily in O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702, establishes the framework for determining who qualifies to offer expert opinions at trial and what threshold of reliability that testimony must meet. The pre-suit expert affidavit requirement, which operates as a filing threshold before the case reaches trial, is a distinct subject addressed elsewhere.
Expert Qualification Themes
Before an expert may testify in a Georgia medical malpractice trial, the court must determine that the witness is qualified to offer the opinions being presented. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702 establishes both general and malpractice-specific qualification criteria.
Under the general framework, a witness may be qualified as an expert by “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education.” This broad formulation permits expertise to be demonstrated through various combinations of academic credentials, professional experience, and specialized training. However, in medical malpractice actions specifically, the statute imposes additional requirements that narrow the field of eligible experts.
For medical malpractice cases, the expert must have been licensed to practice in the state where the expert was practicing or teaching at the time of the alleged malpractice. The expert must also have had “actual professional knowledge and experience” in the relevant area of practice or specialty. This knowledge and experience must be demonstrated through one of two pathways: active practice in the specialty for at least three of the last five years with sufficient frequency to establish an appropriate level of knowledge (as determined by the judge), or teaching the specialty for at least three of the last five years as an employed faculty member at an accredited educational institution.
The “sufficient frequency” requirement gives the trial judge a gatekeeping role that goes beyond simply checking whether the expert holds a license in the relevant specialty. A physician who is board-certified in a given specialty but who has not actively practiced in that area with regularity may not satisfy the statutory threshold. The judge evaluates whether the expert’s recent engagement with the specific procedure, diagnosis, or treatment at issue is sufficient to ground the expert’s opinions in current, working knowledge rather than generalized or outdated familiarity.
Georgia’s adoption of a reliability framework modeled on the federal Daubert standard adds a second layer of judicial gatekeeping. Under O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b), expert testimony must be based on sufficient facts or data, must be the product of reliable principles and methods, and must reflect a reliable application of those principles to the facts of the case. The trial court may hold a pretrial hearing, on motion of a party, to determine whether the expert meets these criteria. The statute directs Georgia courts to draw from federal case law, including the United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals and its progeny, when interpreting and applying these reliability standards.
The combined effect of these qualification and reliability requirements means that both parties in a medical malpractice trial face scrutiny not only over what their experts will say, but over whether those experts will be permitted to say it at all.
Cross-Examination Dynamics
Cross-examination of medical experts is frequently the most consequential phase of a malpractice trial. The expert’s credibility, qualifications, methodology, and potential biases are all subjects of inquiry, and the effectiveness of cross-examination can determine whether the jury credits or discounts the expert’s testimony.
Qualification challenges during cross-examination may target the expert’s proximity to the relevant clinical practice. An expert who has transitioned from active practice to consulting, teaching, or full-time forensic work may be challenged on whether the expert’s knowledge reflects current clinical standards or whether it has been displaced by a career focused on litigation support. The frequency and currency of the expert’s clinical engagement become points of factual inquiry that the opposing party can use to undermine the expert’s authority.
Methodology challenges focus on whether the expert’s opinions are grounded in the analytical rigor the reliability framework requires. An expert who offers a conclusion without adequately explaining the reasoning pathway from the clinical data to the opinion may be challenged on the basis that the testimony reflects personal belief rather than the application of reliable principles. The cross-examiner may probe whether the expert considered alternative explanations, relied on assumptions unsupported by the record, or reached conclusions that extend beyond what the underlying data can support.
Bias challenges address the expert’s relationship to the litigation process itself. Frequency of testimony, the proportion of the expert’s income derived from forensic work, consistency of the expert’s positions across cases, and any financial arrangement with the retaining party are all areas that cross-examination may explore. The purpose is not to disqualify the expert on these grounds, since the qualification determination is the court’s function, but to provide the jury with information relevant to the weight the testimony should receive.
Consider a scenario where the defense presents an expert who is board-certified in the same specialty as the defendant physician. During cross-examination, the plaintiff’s attorney establishes that the expert’s board certification is in a subspecialty different from the specific area of practice at issue, and that the expert has not performed the particular procedure involved in the case within the past several years. The cross-examination does not seek to remove the expert from the witness stand (that challenge would have occurred at the pretrial gatekeeping stage), but to demonstrate to the jury that the expert’s practical familiarity with the specific clinical context is less deep than the expert’s credentials might initially suggest.
Verify current status of all statutes, rules, and judicial holdings at time of publication; legislative or judicial changes may have occurred.
Disclaimer
This content is produced exclusively for general informational and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice, does not create an attorney-client relationship, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for professional legal counsel tailored to specific facts and circumstances.
No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of this content without first seeking qualified legal advice from a licensed attorney admitted to practice in the relevant jurisdiction. Medical malpractice law involves complex, fact-intensive analysis that varies significantly depending on the specific clinical context, the parties involved, the applicable procedural rules, and the current state of statutory and case law at the time of the claim.
The statutes, rules, judicial holdings, and legal principles referenced in this content reflect the law as understood at the time of writing. Georgia law is subject to legislative amendment, judicial reinterpretation, and regulatory change at any time. Specific provisions discussed herein, including but not limited to damage cap rulings, tort reform legislation, statutes of limitation and repose, expert qualification standards, and procedural filing requirements, may have been modified, superseded, or reinterpreted after the date of publication. Readers must independently verify the current status of all legal authorities cited before relying on any information contained in this content.
This content does not cover every aspect of Georgia medical malpractice law. Certain topics have been intentionally excluded from the scope of this publication, and the inclusion or omission of any particular subject should not be interpreted as a statement about its legal significance or relevance to any specific case.
The examples and scenarios presented throughout this content are hypothetical illustrations designed to clarify legal concepts. They do not represent actual cases, real parties, or guaranteed legal outcomes. The outcome of any medical malpractice claim depends on the unique facts of that case and the professional judgment of the attorneys and experts involved.
Nothing in this content should be construed as an opinion regarding the merits of any potential or pending claim, as a prediction of any legal outcome, or as an endorsement of any particular litigation strategy.