DLR Online Special Features

Please visit here for a list of special feature editions of the DLR Online.

Events & Announcements

Mar. 10, 2019 - The Denver Law Review will soon be accepting submissions for the 2019 Emerging Scholar Award. For details on the award including eligibility, award information, and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!

Jan. 9, 2019 - The Denver Law Review is pleased to open registration for our 2019 Symposium, Driven by Data: Empirical Studies in Civil Litigation and Health Law. We have a top-class list of speakers for this year's symposium and we look forward to seeing you there! Register by following this link.

Apr. 4, 2018 - The Denver Law Review is currently accepting submissions for its Recent Developments in the Tenth Circuit issue. For details on the issue and submission instructions, please review this document. We look forward to reviewing all submissions!

Subscriptions and Submissions

For information on how to subscribe to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

For the guidelines on how to submit an article to the Denver Law Review, please click here.

« The SORNA Mess | Main | Court Dismisses Denver Post Case Seeking Governor's Personal Cell Phone Records »

Can Expert Witnesses Change their Minds? 

By Mike Nelson

Yes, but a recent decision from the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals suggests there is a right and wrong way to do so.  

In the fascinating case of Pace v. Swerdlow, the plaintiffs sued a medical expert that they themselves had retained in an underlying medical malpractice case. In the underlying case, the expert previously testified favorably for the plaintiffs, before dramatically reversing his opinion on the eve of the summary judgment hearing. While every state grants expert witnesses immunity from suits initiated by the opposing side, same-side (“friendly”) expert immunity remains an open question in many jurisdictions.    

The Federal District Court for the District of Utah dismissed the case, holding that the expert’s change of opinion had not proximately caused the plaintiffs to lose the underlying medical malpractice case. The Tenth Circuit reversed the district court on the causation issue, holding that the plaintiffs had alleged facts which, if proved, would establish the element of proximate cause in their claim against the expert.  

In allowing the claim to proceed, the Tenth Circuit questioned the expert’s decision to wait until the eve of the summary judgment hearing to communicate his change of opinion, and pointed to allegations that the expert changed his opinion out of fear and intimidation, and not – as the expert claimed – because a compelling new piece of medical evidence had been brought to his attention. 

The decision to recognize a cause-of-action for friendly expert negligence remains a matter of state law, as do the contours of such an action. However, the proximate cause analysis in Pace, having come from the Tenth Circuit, will likely be regarded as considerable persuasive authority by courts assessing causation in future claims of friendly expert negligence involving a change of opinion by the expert.  

For further analysis of this interesting case see: Michael Nelson, Pace v. Swerdlow: Can Expert Witnesses Face Liability for Changing Their Minds? The Tenth Circuit Weighs in on the Element of Proximate Cause in a Claim of Expert Negligence, 86 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1199 (2009).

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Member Account Required
You must have a member account on this website in order to post comments. Log in to your account to enable posting.