Washington State House of Representatives Office of Program Research |
BILL ANALYSIS |
Judiciary Committee | |
HB 1224
Title: An act relating to expert witnesses in actions under chapter 7.70 RCW.
Brief Description: Qualifying expert witnesses in actions under chapter 7.70 RCW.
Sponsors: Representatives Schual-Berke, Cody, Lantz, Fromhold, Moeller, P. Sullivan, Morrell, Linville, Clibborn, Kagi and Ormsby.
Brief Summary of Bill |
|
|
Hearing Date: 2/14/05
Staff: Edie Adams (786-7180).
Background:
Medical malpractice actions are civil tort actions for the recovery of damages for injury or death
resulting from the provision of health care. There are three grounds on which a health care
provider may be found liable in a medical malpractice action:
Failure to follow the standard of care means that the health care provider failed to exercise the
degree of care expected of a reasonably prudent provider in the same field at that time, and
acting in the same or similar circumstances.
In a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff has the burden of proof to establish all necessary
elements. Expert witnesses are generally required in a medical malpractice action to establish
the standard of care of a reasonably prudent health care provider and to prove that the failure to
exercise that standard of care was the proximate cause of the patient's injury.
Statutory law dealing with medical malpractice actions does not establish qualifications for
expert witnesses. However, court rule provides requirements for the use of expert witnesses in
any trial, including medical malpractice cases. Under Evidence Rule 702, a person may be an
expert if qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." The trial court
judge has broad discretion under this rule to determine whether a witness is qualified to give an
expert opinion.
Summary of Bill:
An expert in a medical malpractice action must meet the following qualifications in order to
provide expert testimony at trial:
The court may waive the expert qualifications if the court finds that: (1) extensive efforts were
made to locate an expert meeting the qualifications, but none was willing and able to testify; and
(2) the proposed expert is qualified to be an expert by virtue of his or her training, experience,
and knowledge.
An expert opinion provided during the course of a medical malpractice action must be
corroborated by admissible evidence. Examples of admissible evidence are provided, including
treatment or practice protocols or guidelines, objective academic research, or clinical trials.
Appropriation: None.
Fiscal Note: Not requested.
Effective Date: The bill takes effect 90 days after adjournment of session in which bill is passed.