Two physicians are asked to testify about whether a surgeon met the standard of care. Both are board-certified, both are experienced, both are willing. One is permitted to take the stand; the other is not. The difference between them is not competence as doctors. It is whether each satisfies the specific rules Georgia sets for who may give expert testimony in a malpractice trial. Those rules decide, before a jury hears a word, whose opinion counts.
This article explains expert testimony rules in general terms and is not legal advice. Whether a particular expert qualifies in a specific case is a question for a licensed Georgia attorney.
Why expert testimony is required
Medical malpractice trials depend on expert testimony in a way that most civil cases do not. The reason is simple. The reason is that the central questions, what the standard of care required and whether the defendant departed from it, are beyond the knowledge of an ordinary juror. A jury cannot be expected to know, from common experience, how a competent anesthesiologist manages a particular risk or how a radiologist should read a particular film.
So Georgia law generally requires that the standard of care, the breach, and the causal link be established through qualified expert testimony. Without an expert to explain what accepted practice demanded and where the defendant fell short, most malpractice claims cannot reach a jury at all. The expert witness is not an accessory to the case; the expert is how the case is proven.
Competency rules under Section 24-7-702
This is where the two physicians in the opening diverge. Being an excellent doctor does not, by itself, qualify someone to testify. Georgia’s competency requirements for malpractice experts are set out in O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702, and they are specific.
The statute sets out several requirements that an expert generally must satisfy:
- Actual knowledge and experience in the relevant area, gained through active practice or teaching
- Experience that is current, having occurred within a defined period before the events at issue
- A match in specialty, meaning practice or teaching in the same or a substantially similar field as the defendant when the case concerns a specialist
Each requirement is a place where an otherwise capable physician can fall short.
The physician who is barred, in the opening scenario, might be one whose relevant experience is too far in the past, or whose specialty does not sufficiently match the care in question. The rules are not about ability in the abstract. They are about the fit between this expert and this case.
Establishing the standard of care
Once a qualified expert is on the stand, their central task is to define the standard of care and apply it. The standard is not personal opinion. The standard is not a personal opinion about how the expert would have handled things. It is the level of skill and care that the relevant professional community accepts as appropriate under the specific circumstances the defendant faced. The community sets the bar, not the witness.
The expert explains that standard to the jury in terms it can understand, then walks through the facts of the case to show whether the defendant met it or fell below it. Causation is often addressed the same way: the expert connects the breach to the injury, explaining how the departure from accepted practice led to the harm. Each link in the chain runs through testimony the jury is equipped to weigh.
Cross-examination and opposing experts
Expert testimony is rarely one-sided. The defense typically presents its own qualified expert, who may describe the standard differently or conclude that the defendant met it. The jury is then left to weigh competing expert accounts, and cross-examination is where those accounts are tested.
On cross-examination, each expert’s qualifications, methods, and conclusions are probed. An expert whose experience is thin in the relevant area, or whose reasoning does not hold up, can be exposed. The jury’s task is not to count experts but to judge which testimony is more credible and better supported.
Common questions
Can a nurse or other non-physician serve as an expert witness?
Georgia’s competency rules tie an expert’s qualifications to the area of practice at issue. In claims concerning nursing care, a qualified nursing expert may be appropriate to establish the nursing standard, while claims about a physician’s care generally require a physician expert in the relevant field. The fit between the expert and the specific care in question is what governs.
How does a jury weigh two experts who disagree?
When each side presents a qualified expert reaching different conclusions, the jury evaluates their credibility, the soundness of their reasoning, and how well their opinions fit the evidence. It is not a matter of counting experts. The jury decides which testimony it finds more persuasive after both have been examined and cross-examined.
Are expert witnesses paid, and does that affect their credibility?
Experts are generally compensated for their time and analysis, which is standard practice. That compensation can be explored on cross-examination as one factor bearing on credibility, but it does not by itself disqualify an expert. Juries consider it alongside the substance and reliability of the testimony.
For anyone trying to understand how a malpractice trial actually works, the practical takeaways are concrete. Securing the right expert is not a formality but a threshold that determines whether a case can be tried at all. The expert must fit the specialty and the timing that Section 24-7-702 requires. And because both sides will present experts, the persuasiveness and credibility of that testimony, tested under cross-examination, often decides the case. Identifying and vetting an appropriately qualified expert is work a Georgia malpractice attorney begins early, long before trial.