Medical Expert Witness Requirements by State: Same-Specialty, Active-Practice, Board-Certification and Licensure Rules (All 50 States + DC)

Alabama

Expert must be a 'similarly situated health care provider.' Against a non-specialist: trained and experienced in the same discipline or school of practice. Against a board-certified specialist: trained and experienced in the same specialty and certified by an appropriate American board in that specialty. Alabama Medical Liability Act. Strictly enforced: in Youngblood v. Martin (Ala. 2020) a plaintiff's verdict was reversed because the expert never established licensure by a state board. Statute text at § 6-5-484 speaks of the 'same general neighborhood,' but Alabama courts apply a national standard.

Authority: Ala. Code § 6-5-548 · Alabama med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Alabama settlement ranges

Alaska

Expert must be a licensed professional trained and experienced in the same discipline or school of practice as the defendant, or in an area directly related to the matter at issue, and certified by a board recognized by the state as having expertise directly related to the field or matter at issue. AS 09.55.540 measures care against providers 'in the field or specialty in which the defendant is practicing,' with no locality element. Board certification is the distinctive Alaska requirement.

Authority: Alaska Stat. § 09.20.185 · Alaska med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Alaska settlement ranges

Arizona

If the defendant is or claims to be a specialist, the expert must specialize at the time of the occurrence in the same specialty or claimed specialty; if the defendant is board-certified, the expert must be board-certified in that specialty. A.R.S. § 12-563 defines the standard as that of a reasonable, prudent provider in the profession or class 'within the state.' Statute also bars experts paid on a contingent basis and preserves the court's power to disqualify on other grounds.

Authority: A.R.S. § 12-2604 · Arizona med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Arizona settlement ranges

Arkansas

The statute's text requires standard-of-care testimony 'only by a medical care provider of the same specialty as the defendant,' but the Arkansas Supreme Court struck that clause in Broussard (2012) as a legislative intrusion on the courts' rulemaking power (Amendment 80). Qualification is now governed by Ark. R. Evid. 702. Statute still frames the standard as that of providers 'in the locality in which he or she practices or in a similar locality.' Expect Rule 702 challenges rather than a bright-line specialty test. Same-specialty clause held unconstitutional 2012 (Broussard)

Authority: Ark. Code § 16-114-206; Broussard v. St. Edward Mercy Health Sys., 2012 Ark. 14 · Arkansas med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Arkansas settlement ranges

California

No statute limits medical-malpractice experts by specialty. Under Evid. Code § 720 a witness qualifies through special knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, and courts ask whether the expert is familiar with circumstances similar to the defendant's; local-community familiarity is relevant but not required (Avivi). Avivi rejected the locality rule for ordinary malpractice claims: 'knowledge of similarity of conditions' controls and geography is only one factor. Qualification challenges go to weight, subject to the trial court's gatekeeping.

Authority: Cal. Evid. Code § 720; Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) · California med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · California settlement ranges

Colorado

Against a physician, the expert must be a licensed physician who demonstrates by competent evidence substantial familiarity with the applicable standards of care. An expert in one medical subspecialty may not testify against a physician in another subspecialty unless the standards of care and practice in the two fields are shown to be similar. Colorado's pattern instruction (CJI-Civ. 15:2) measures a nonspecialist against physicians 'in the same field of practice, in the same or similar locality'; specialists are measured against their specialty (CJI-Civ. 15:3; Jordan v. Bogner, 844 P.2d 664 (Colo. 1993)). Subspecialty limits do not apply to testimony on degree or permanency of impairment.

Authority: Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-64-401 · Colorado med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Colorado settlement ranges

Connecticut

A 'similar health care provider' for a board-certified or self-described specialist is one trained and experienced in the same specialty and certified by the appropriate American board in that specialty; for a non-specialist, one licensed in the same discipline with active practice or teaching within the prior five years. Under subsection (d) the court may also admit a provider with sufficient training, experience and knowledge from practice or teaching in a related field within five years. Opinion-letter authors for specialist defendants must meet the stricter subsection (c) definition even though a related-field expert may be allowed at trial under (d). Standard is that of 'reasonably prudent similar health care providers' with no geographic limit.

Authority: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-184c · Connecticut med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Connecticut settlement ranges

Delaware

For trial testimony, § 6854 requires only that the witness be familiar with the degree of skill ordinarily employed in the field of medicine on which he or she testifies. The affidavit-of-merit expert is held to a stricter test: engaged in treating patients and/or teaching in the same or similar field as the defendant within the prior three years, and board certified in that field if the defendant is. § 6801(7) defines the standard as the skill and care ordinarily employed 'in the same or similar field of medicine as defendant,' with no locality element. § 6853(e) requires expert testimony on breach and causation except for enumerated res ipsa situations.

Authority: 18 Del. C. § 6854; § 6853(c) · Delaware med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Delaware settlement ranges

District of Columbia

No statute or rule restricts expert specialty. Under Morrison v. MacNamara the expert must be familiar with, and able to articulate, the national standard of care for the defendant's specialty; out-of-jurisdiction experts are admissible. Morrison abandoned the locality rule for nationally certified professionals and admitted a Michigan physician's testimony. Notice must state the legal basis of the claim and the type and extent of loss.

Authority: D.C. Code § 16-2802 (no expert-qualification statute); Morrison v. MacNamara, 407 A.2d 555 (D.C. 1979) · District of Columbia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · District of Columbia settlement ranges

Florida

Against a specialist, the expert must specialize in the same specialty as the defendant and, during the 3 years before the incident, have devoted professional time to active clinical practice of or consulting in that specialty, teaching in an accredited program in that specialty, or a clinical research program. Against a general practitioner: 5 years of general practice, teaching, or research. Standard is that of 'reasonably prudent similar health care providers' with no locality element, except that an emergency-department expert's 'substantial professional experience' is judged by practice in the same or similar localities. Out-of-state physicians need a Department of Health expert witness certificate.

Authority: Fla. Stat. § 766.102(5)-(6), (12) · Florida med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Florida settlement ranges

Georgia

Expert must have actual professional knowledge and experience in the area of practice or specialty in which the opinion is given, from active practice or faculty teaching for at least 3 of the last 5 years, and must be a member of the same profession (MDs and DOs may testify against each other). A physician who supervised or taught nurses, PAs, or similar staff for 3 of 5 years may testify to their standard, but those providers may not testify against physicians. Frequency and sufficiency of practice are judged by the trial court. Georgia measures care against what is 'ordinarily employed by the medical profession generally' under like circumstances.

Authority: O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(c) · Georgia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Georgia settlement ranges

Hawaii

No statute restricts trial experts by specialty; qualification is under HRE 702 (knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education). The pre-suit certificate of consultation, however, requires consultation with a physician knowledgeable or experienced in the same medical specialty as the defendant, or as closely related a specialty as practicable. The panel process is mandatory; the certificate may be excused after documented good-faith attempts to find a consulting physician, and is not required for informed-consent-only claims.

Authority: Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 671-12, 671-12.5; Haw. R. Evid. 702 (no specialty statute) · Hawaii med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Hawaii settlement ranges

Idaho

Expert must hold the opinion with reasonable medical certainty and possess professional knowledge and expertise coupled with actual knowledge of the applicable community standard; an out-of-area expert may qualify by familiarizing himself or herself with local standards. Under § 6-1012 the defendant is compared with similarly trained providers of the same class in the same community, taking into account fields of specialization. 'Community' is the area served by the licensed general hospital at or nearest to which care was provided; if no comparable local provider exists, similar Idaho communities may be used. Foundation for actual knowledge of that community standard is routinely litigated.

Authority: Idaho Code § 6-1013; § 6-1012 · Idaho med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Idaho settlement ranges

Illinois

No strict same-specialty rule; the expert must be licensed in the same school of medicine as the defendant (Sullivan: a physician may not testify to the nursing standard) and familiar with the methods and procedures at issue. § 8-2501 directs courts to weigh the relationship of the witness's specialty to the medical problem, time devoted to practice, teaching or research in that area, and licensure. IPI Civil 105.01 notes the locality rule 'has largely faded' and its language is deleted absent a genuine local-standard issue (Purtill v. Hess, 111 Ill. 2d 229 (1986)).

Authority: 735 ILCS 5/2-622; 735 ILCS 5/8-2501; Sullivan v. Edward Hosp., 209 Ill. 2d 100 (2004) · Illinois med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Illinois settlement ranges

Indiana

No statute imposes a degree, license, certification, or specialty match for trial experts; qualification is under Rule 702 (knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, any one of which may suffice). Objections to specialty or experience go to weight. Vergara v. Doan, 593 N.E.2d 185 (Ind. 1992) abandoned the modified locality rule; locality is one circumstance only. Panel opinions are admissible and panelists may be called as witnesses.

Authority: Ind. Code § 34-18-8-4 (medical review panel); Ind. R. Evid. 702 (no specialty statute) · Indiana med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Indiana settlement ranges

Iowa

Plaintiff's standard-of-care expert must be licensed in the same or a substantially similar field as the defendant, have actively practiced in that field (or taught it at an accredited university) within the 5 years before the act, and, if the defendant is board-certified, be certified in the same or a substantially similar specialty by an ABMS, AOA, or CPME-recognized board. Statute applies to the plaintiff's designated expert. Iowa courts read 'licensed' to require a currently active license and treat locality as only one circumstance, rejecting it for specialists. 2017 Acts ch. 107 (SF 465), applies to causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2017; § 147.139 further amended 2018

Authority: Iowa Code § 147.139 · Iowa med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Iowa settlement ranges

Kansas

Statute keys to profession, not specialty: no person qualifies as a standard-of-care expert unless at least 50% of professional time in the 2 years before the incident was devoted to actual clinical practice in the same profession in which the defendant is licensed. The Kansas Supreme Court has said the statute was never intended to require the same specialty. Enacted 1986 to curb 'professional witnesses.' Kansas juries are instructed that a physician must use the learning and skill of others in the same field 'in the same or similar communities and circumstances' (PIK Civ. 4th 123.01; Biglow v. Via Christi (Kan. 2018)).

Authority: Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-3412 · Kansas med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Kansas settlement ranges

Kentucky

No statute or rule requires the expert to share the defendant's specialty or maintain an active practice; qualification is under KRE 702. The expert must nonetheless be able to state the standard of care for the defendant's class of practitioner (Blair v. Eblen, 461 S.W.2d 370 (Ky. 1970)). Blair v. Eblen frames the duty as that of 'a reasonably competent practitioner in the same class ... acting in the same or similar circumstances,' with no locality element. Kentucky is among the most permissive states on who may testify. KRS 411.167 effective June 27, 2019 (2019 Ky. Acts ch. 180)

Authority: KRS 411.167 (certificate of merit); KRE 702 (no specialty statute) · Kentucky med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Kentucky settlement ranges

Louisiana

Against a physician, the expert must be practicing medicine when testifying or when the claim arose, have knowledge of the accepted standards for the diagnosis, care, or treatment at issue, and be qualified by training or experience. The court must consider whether the witness is board certified or has other substantial training or experience in an area of practice relevant to the claim and is actively practicing in that area (D)(3). Hybrid standard under (A)(1): non-specialists are judged against Louisiana physicians 'actively practicing in a similar community or locale'; where the negligence raises issues peculiar to a specialty, the standard is that of the specialty without a locality limit. A defendant physician is not disqualified from testifying as an expert.

Authority: La. R.S. 9:2794(D) · Louisiana med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Louisiana settlement ranges

Maine

No statutory specialty match for trial experts; a member of one specialty may testify to another specialty's standard if familiar with it and found qualified by the trial judge, who has wide discretion. The screening panel chair must, if possible, seat a practitioner in the defendant's specialty. McLaughlin v. Sy, 589 A.2d 448 (Me. 1991): the locality rule 'is not the law in Maine'; the standard is the care an ordinarily competent practitioner would provide under like circumstances, with locality at most a factor.

Authority: 24 M.R.S. §§ 2851-2852 (prelitigation screening panel); M.R. Evid. 702 (no specialty statute) · Maine med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Maine settlement ranges

Maryland

An attesting or testifying provider must have had clinical experience, provided consultation relating to clinical practice, or taught medicine in the defendant's specialty or a related field (or the field in which the defendant provided care) within 5 years of the alleged act; if the defendant is board certified, the expert must be board certified in the same or a related specialty, with exceptions where the defendant practiced outside the specialty or the expert taught in it. Shilkret v. Annapolis Emergency Hosp. Ass'n, 276 Md. 187 (1975) sets a single national standard for all physicians, with specialization among the circumstances considered. The percentage cap applies to both certifying and testifying experts. Current text caps testimony-related activity at 25% of professional activities (earlier versions read 20%)

Authority: Md. Code, Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-2A-02(c); § 3-2A-04(b) · Maryland med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Maryland settlement ranges

Massachusetts

No statute requires a specialty match. Under Letch v. Daniels a medical expert 'need not be a specialist in the area concerned nor be practicing in the same field as the defendant'; the question is sufficient education, training, experience and familiarity with the subject, and gaps go to weight. Brune v. Belinkoff, 354 Mass. 102 (1968) abolished the locality rule; general practitioners are held to the average qualified practitioner and specialists to the average practitioner of the specialty, considering advances and available resources. The tribunal physician is drawn from the relevant field but from outside the defendant's county.

Authority: Mass. Gen. Laws c. 231 § 60B (tribunal); Letch v. Daniels, 401 Mass. 65 (1987) · Massachusetts med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Massachusetts settlement ranges

Michigan

If the defendant is a specialist, the expert must specialize at the time of the occurrence in the same specialty; if the defendant is board certified, the expert must be board certified in that specialty. Courts also weigh educational background, area of specialization, length of practice, and relevance of the testimony. Two-tier standard under MCL 600.2912a: general practitioners are judged by the community in which they practice or a similar community; specialists by the recognized standard within the specialty as reasonably applied in light of available facilities. Contingent-fee expert testimony is a misdemeanor.

Authority: MCL 600.2169 · Michigan med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Michigan settlement ranges

Minnesota

No statutory specialty match, licensure, or active-practice requirement. The reviewing expert must have qualifications giving a reasonable expectation that the opinions would be admissible at trial; competence turns on educational credentials and practical experience with the subject matter under Rule 702. The second affidavit must identify each expert and give the substance of the facts and opinions and a summary of the grounds. Minnesota courts have allowed a general dentist to testify against an oral surgeon; the pool of qualified experts is not limited to the most qualified.

Authority: Minn. Stat. § 145.682; Minn. R. Evid. 702 (no specialty statute) · Minnesota med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Minnesota settlement ranges

Mississippi

No statute limits experts by specialty. Under Hall v. Hilbun the witness need not practice in the locality or the same specialty; the expert must be familiar with the standard of care for the defendant's field and the facilities and resources reasonably available to the defendant. Hall v. Hilbun adopted a national standard 'modified only minimally by local factors,' chiefly equipment and facilities. Certificate exceptions cover imminent limitations deadlines, three failed good-faith attempts, and res ipsa or informed-consent-only claims.

Authority: Miss. R. Evid. 702 (no specialty statute); Miss. Code § 11-1-58; Hall v. Hilbun, 466 So. 2d 856 (Miss. 1985) · Mississippi med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Mississippi settlement ranges

Missouri

Trial experts qualify under § 490.065 (knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, with reliability review) and no specialty match is imposed. The affidavit-of-merit opinion, however, must come from a 'legally qualified health care provider': licensed in the same profession as the defendant and actively practicing, or within 5 years of retirement from, substantially the same specialty. Standard is the skill and learning ordinarily used 'under the same or similar circumstances by members of the defendant's profession' (MAI 11.06), with no locality element. Defendants may seek in camera review of the opinion within 180 days; a no-probable-cause finding shifts fees. Affidavit provisions effective August 28, 2005 (HB 393)

Authority: Mo. Rev. Stat. § 538.225; § 490.065 · Missouri med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Missouri settlement ranges

Montana

The expert must be a licensed health care provider who treats (or within the past 5 years treated) the condition at issue or teaches in an accredited health-professional program, and must show by competent evidence familiarity with the standard of care applicable to the defendant. If the care was provided by a physician, only a physician may testify, and an expert in one specialty may not testify about another unless the standards of care in the two fields are shown to be substantially similar. Board-certified physicians are held to a national standard; non-board-certified general practitioners are measured against reasonably competent GPs in the same or similar community anywhere in the United States (Chapel v. Allison, 241 Mont. 83 (1990)). § 26-2-601 enacted 2005 (Ch. 49, L. 2005)

Authority: Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 · Montana med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Montana settlement ranges

Nebraska

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; the witness qualifies under the general expert rule but must affirmatively demonstrate familiarity with the standard of care in the defendant's community or a medically comparable community, supported by fact-based comparison of facilities, personnel and practices (Carson v. Steinke, 314 Neb. 140 (2023)). Section 44-2810 defines malpractice by what providers in the same community or similar communities and engaged in the same or similar lines of work would ordinarily exercise. Lack of practice in the locality goes to weight if the expert shows familiarity with the same or similar locality standard.

Authority: Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2810; Neb. Evid. R. 27-702 · Nebraska med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Nebraska settlement ranges

Nevada

Expert medical testimony on the standard of care may be given only by a provider of health care who practices or has practiced in an area that is substantially similar to the type of practice engaged in at the time of the alleged negligence (NRS 41A.100(2)); the same 'substantially similar' test governs the affidavit-of-merit expert (NRS 41A.071). A deficient NRS 41A.071 affidavit generally cannot be cured by amendment. Rebuttable presumption of negligence (no expert needed) for retained foreign objects, wrong-site surgery and similar occurrences under NRS 41A.100(1). NRS 41A.071 and 41A.100 last amended 2015; 2023 AB 404 changed damages caps and limitations, not expert rules

Authority: NRS 41A.071; NRS 41A.100 · Nevada med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Nevada settlement ranges

New Hampshire

The plaintiff must prove by expert testimony of a competent witness the standard of reasonable professional practice in the provider's profession or specialty, breach, and proximate cause. The statute imposes no same-specialty, practice-time or licensure test; admissibility is governed by N.H. R. Evid. 702. Informed-consent claims are judged by what other competent providers with similar training and experience would have disclosed. No recovery for loss of opportunity for a substantially better outcome alone. Screening panels (RSA 519-B) repealed eff. July 1, 2023

Authority: N.H. RSA 507-E:2 · New Hampshire med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New Hampshire settlement ranges

New Jersey

If the defendant is a specialist, the expert must specialize in the same specialty; if the defendant is board-certified, the expert must either hold hospital credentials to treat the condition or procedure or be board-certified in the same specialty. Against a general practitioner the expert must have spent the majority of the preceding year in active general practice or teaching. Court may waive on a showing of a good-faith effort to find a same-specialty expert and sufficient training and knowledge. Experts may not testify on a contingency-fee basis; retaliation against an expert is subject to penalties up to $10,000. Patients First Act (2004)

Authority: N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-41; N.J.S.A. 2A:53A-27 · New Jersey med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New Jersey settlement ranges

New Mexico

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; the witness must qualify as an expert under Rule 11-702 in the field on which the opinion is offered. Courts prefer a same-specialty expert but allow cross-specialty testimony (for example a general practitioner on a specialist) where the witness's training or experience supplies a sufficient foundation. Where the Commission panel finds possible malpractice, it must help the patient retain a physician qualified in the field involved to consult and testify (NMSA § 41-5-23).

Authority: N.M. R. Evid. 11-702; NMSA 1978 § 41-5-15 · New Mexico med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New Mexico settlement ranges

New York

No statute sets trial-expert qualifications. A physician need not be a specialist in the defendant's field to testify about accepted practice in that field, but must possess the requisite skill, training, education, knowledge or experience, and when opining outside his or her specialty must lay a foundation showing familiarity with the applicable standard of care (Behar v. Coren; Kiernan v. Arevalo-Valencia). The community standard is a floor: a physician must also use best judgment and any special skill or knowledge possessed, and specialists are held to the standard of similar specialists (Toth v. Community Hosp. at Glen Cove, 22 N.Y.2d 255 (1968)). An expert opinion without the required foundation lacks probative value on summary judgment.

Authority: N.Y. CPLR 3012-a; Behar v. Coren, 21 A.D.3d 1045 (2d Dep't 2005) · New York med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · New York settlement ranges

North Carolina

Against a specialist, the expert must specialize in the same specialty or in a similar specialty that includes performance of the procedure at issue and have prior experience treating similar patients; against a general practitioner, the expert must have spent the preceding year predominantly in general practice or teaching. A resident superior court judge may admit a non-conforming but otherwise qualified expert on a showing of extraordinary circumstances (Rule 702(e)). G.S. 90-21.12 measures care against providers with similar training and experience in the same or similar communities, and requires clear and convincing evidence for emergency-care claims. Experts may not testify on a contingency-fee basis (Rule 702(f)). Rule 702 last amended 2017 (S.L. 2017-57, 2017-212); Daubert language added 2011

Authority: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 8C-1, Rule 702(b)-(h); N.C. R. Civ. P. 9(j) · North Carolina med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · North Carolina settlement ranges

North Dakota

No specialty-match statute; the expert must offer an admissible opinion under N.D. R. Ev. 702, and the § 28-01-46 affidavit must identify the expert's field of expertise and summarize the basis for the opinion. Failure to serve the affidavit results in dismissal without prejudice on motion. Filing a malpractice action waives privilege as to treating providers and permits informal defense discussions with them (§ 28-01-46.1).

Authority: N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-46; N.D. R. Ev. 702 · North Dakota med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · North Dakota settlement ranges

Ohio

A liability expert in a medical claim against a physician, podiatrist or hospital must practice in the same or a substantially similar specialty as the defendant; a cross-specialty expert is permitted only on a showing that the standards of care in the two specialties are similar and the expert has substantial familiarity between them. If the expert is board-certified, the board must be ABMS- or AOA-recognized in a specialty directly related to the matter at issue. The rule does not bar other medical professionals (for example nurses) from testifying to the standard of care in their own profession, and the trial court retains power to find an expert incompetent on other grounds. Renumbered from Evid. R. 601(D) to 601(B)(5) (July 1, 2020 and 2021 amendments); (B)(5)(b) timing clarified eff. July 1, 2023 after Johnson v. Abdullah, 2021-Ohio-3304

Authority: Ohio Evid. R. 601(B)(5); Ohio Civ. R. 10(D)(2) · Ohio med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Ohio settlement ranges

Oklahoma

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; experts are admitted under 12 O.S. § 2702 based on knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, with the proponent showing it is more likely than not that the opinion rests on sufficient facts, reliable methods and reliable application. Oklahoma does not impose a strict same-specialty match; qualification turns on the opinion offered and the witness's background. Expert affidavits remain practically necessary to survive dismissal or summary judgment on standard-of-care claims even though no statutory affidavit of merit applies. § 2702 amended by Laws 2025, SB 453, eff. Sept. 1, 2025 (adds the 'more likely than not' reliability showing)

Authority: 12 O.S. § 2702 · Oklahoma med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Oklahoma settlement ranges

Oregon

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; the witness must qualify under OEC 702 by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education and in practice must be able to establish the standard of care in the defendant's field or specialty. Licensure is not a prerequisite to admissibility. ORS 677.095 requires the degree of care, skill and diligence used by ordinarily careful physicians in the same or similar circumstances in the physician's community or a similar community. Expert testimony is required on standard of care, breach and causation to a medical probability.

Authority: ORS 40.410 (OEC 702); ORS 677.095 · Oregon med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Oregon settlement ranges

Pennsylvania

A standard-of-care expert against a physician must practice in the same subspecialty as the defendant or in a subspecialty with a substantially similar standard of care and, if the defendant is board-certified, be certified by the same or a similar approved board. The court may waive the subspecialty and board requirements where the defendant provided care outside the specialty, or where the expert shows sufficient training through active involvement in or full-time teaching of the applicable subspecialty. The subspecialty and board-certification rules apply only to standard-of-care testimony; other expert issues are governed by general competence. MCARE Act, 2002 Act 13

Authority: 40 P.S. § 1303.512 (MCARE § 512); Pa. R. Civ. P. 1042.3 · Pennsylvania med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Pennsylvania settlement ranges

Rhode Island

Only persons who by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education qualify as experts in the field of the alleged malpractice may testify. Under Sheeley, any doctor with knowledge of or familiarity with the procedure, acquired through experience, observation, association or education, is competent, and the expert need not share the defendant's specialty; a board-certified specialist in a related field is presumptively qualified. Sheeley repudiated the same-or-similar-communities test in favor of a national standard and directed courts to focus on the procedure performed rather than professional compartmentalization. § 9-19-41 applies to claims arising on or after Jan. 1, 1987

Authority: R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-19-41; Sheeley v. Memorial Hosp., 710 A.2d 161 (R.I. 1998) · Rhode Island med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Rhode Island settlement ranges

South Carolina

The expert must be qualified as to the acceptable conduct of the professional whose conduct is at issue and satisfy one of three pathways: (1) licensed and board certified by a national or international association in the area of the opinion; (2) licensed and engaged in that area for at least three of the last five years through active practice, at least half-time teaching at an accredited institution, or a combination; or (3) other scientific, technical or specialized knowledge, with an explanation of credentials subject to challenge. The Notice of Intent tolls the statute of limitations; suit may be filed within 60 days after the mediator declares mediation not viable or before limitations expire, whichever is later.

Authority: S.C. Code § 15-36-100; § 15-79-125 · South Carolina med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · South Carolina settlement ranges

South Dakota

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; the expert must qualify under SDCL § 19-19-702 (Daubert standard) by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education, and courts compare the physician's background to the testimony offered (Maroney v. Aman, 565 N.W.2d 70 (S.D. 1997)). A specialist must possess the knowledge and skill ordinarily possessed by physicians of good standing in the same field of specialization in the United States (Papke v. Harbert, 2007 S.D. 87). Expert testimony is generally required on standard of care and breach (Magbuhat v. Kovarik, 382 N.W.2d 43 (S.D. 1986)).

Authority: SDCL § 19-19-702 · South Dakota med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · South Dakota settlement ranges

Tennessee

The expert must be licensed in Tennessee or a contiguous bordering state in a profession or specialty that makes the testimony relevant, must have practiced that profession or specialty in one of those states during the year preceding the alleged injury, and must know the standard of care in the community where the defendant practices or a similar community. The court may waive the licensure/practice requirement when appropriate witnesses would otherwise be unavailable. The contiguous-state rule covers Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina and Virginia. Defendants alleging non-party fault must file a parallel certificate within 30 days.

Authority: Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-26-115(b); § 29-26-122 · Tennessee med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Tennessee settlement ranges

Texas

Against a physician, the expert must be a physician who is practicing medicine at the time of testimony or when the claim arose, has knowledge of accepted standards for the diagnosis, care or treatment of the condition involved, and is qualified by training or experience. The court considers whether the witness is board certified or has substantial training or experience in a relevant area and is actively practicing medicine relevant to the claim, and may depart from these criteria for good reason stated on the record. Discovery is stayed until the § 74.351 report is served, apart from records and limited depositions. Causation experts must be physicians (or the matching profession) qualified under the Texas Rules of Evidence.

Authority: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 74.401-74.403; § 74.351 · Texas med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Texas settlement ranges

Utah

No med-mal-specific qualification statute for trial experts; Utah R. Evid. 702 requires a qualified expert whose principles and methods meet a threshold showing of reliability. The affidavit-of-merit signer must hold a current unrestricted license from Utah or another state to practice medicine in all its branches when any respondent is a physician, or in the same specialty or class of license otherwise (§ 78B-3-423(5)). Panel opinions are informal, nonbinding and unreviewable; the request tolls limitations. The 2025 text leaves § 78B-3-416(1)(c) and § 78B-3-423(2) in tension, so confirm current practice before advising on whether panel review can be skipped. Amended by HB 503 (2025), eff. May 7, 2025

Authority: Utah Code §§ 78B-3-416, -418, -423; Utah R. Evid. 702 · Utah med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Utah settlement ranges

Vermont

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; the plaintiff must prove the knowledge, skill and care of a reasonably skillful, careful and prudent health care professional engaged in a similar practice under the same or similar circumstances, and experts qualify under Vt. R. Evid. 702. The certificate-of-merit consultant must be a health care provider qualified under Rule 702. Section 1908 measures the standard 'whether or not within the State of Vermont,' rejecting a locality limitation. Failure to file the certificate is grounds for dismissal without prejudice. § 1042 applies to injuries occurring on or after Feb. 1, 2013

Authority: 12 V.S.A. § 1908; 12 V.S.A. § 1042; Vt. R. Evid. 702 · Vermont med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Vermont settlement ranges

Virginia

The expert must demonstrate expert knowledge of the standards of the defendant's specialty and of what conduct conforms or fails to conform to them, and must have had active clinical practice in the defendant's specialty or a related field of medicine within one year of the alleged act or omission. The certifying expert's identity and qualifications are not discoverable unless later designated to testify at trial.

Authority: Va. Code § 8.01-581.20; § 8.01-20.1 · Virginia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Virginia settlement ranges

Washington

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; the expert must qualify under ER 702 and be able to establish the care, skill and learning expected of a reasonably prudent provider in the same profession or class acting in the same or similar circumstances in Washington. For care during the COVID-19 emergency period beginning Feb. 29, 2020, the trier of fact must consider good-faith reliance on official guidance and pandemic-related resource shortages. RCW 7.70.040 amended 2021 (c 241) to add the COVID-19 emergency provisions; RCW 7.70.150 repealed 2023

Authority: RCW 7.70.040; Wash. ER 702 · Washington med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Washington settlement ranges

West Virginia

The expert must actually hold the opinion to a reasonable medical probability, possess professional knowledge of the applicable standard of care, ground the opinion in peer-reviewed studies where available, hold an active medical license not revoked or suspended in the past year, and be engaged or qualified in a medical field in which the expert has experience or training in diagnosing or treating conditions similar to the patient's. The trial court retains discretion on competency. Service of the notice of claim tolls the statute of limitations through 30 days after the response or the conclusion of pre-suit mediation.

Authority: W. Va. Code § 55-7B-7; § 55-7B-6 · West Virginia med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · West Virginia settlement ranges

Wisconsin

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; the expert must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education and meet the Daubert reliability standard adopted in § 907.02(1). An expert who is entitled to compensation contingent on the outcome may not testify (§ 907.02(2)). Chapter 655 governs claims against participating providers and the Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund; it imposes no expert-qualification test beyond § 907.02. § 907.02 amended by 2011 Wis. Act 2 (Daubert standard and contingent-fee bar)

Authority: Wis. Stat. § 907.02; ch. 655 · Wisconsin med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Wisconsin settlement ranges

Wyoming

No med-mal-specific qualification statute; an expert qualifies under W.R.E. 702 by knowledge, skill, experience, training or education. The plaintiff must prove a departure from the standard of care followed by providers performing similar health care services or, for providers certified by a national board or association, the standard followed by that board (§ 1-12-601). Section 1-12-601 contains no geographic term; board-certified providers are measured against their national board's standard. Some older secondary sources still describe the review panel as mandatory, which is outdated. Medical Review Panel Act repealed eff. July 1, 2022

Authority: Wyo. Stat. § 1-12-601; W.R.E. 702 · Wyoming med-mal guide (SOL, caps, merit rules) · Wyoming settlement ranges