A Louisiana Plaintiff filed claims of retaliation and hostile work environment based on religion against a medical school board in connection with his termination from the school’s emergency medicine residency program. In support of his claims, Plaintiff retained several experts whom the School challenged under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert. One of these was a medical recruiter and employment placement expert.
U.S. District Judge Lance M. Africk wrote in his opinion that Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert witness testimony. To qualify as an expert, the judge said that the witness must have “such knowledge or experience in [his] field or calling as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for truth,” quoting a Fifth Circuit decision.
Plaintiff retained medical recruiter and employment placement expert to testify on his ability to become board-certified, his future job prospects including the market demand for emergency medicine physicians, the average age of retirement of emergency medicine physicians, and the salary differences between emergency medicine and urgent care physicians. The School moved to exclude the expert’s opinions, arguing that they were unreliable pursuant to Rule 702 and Daubert.
Plaintiff’s expert had worked in the physician recruitment and placement industry since 1983. She founded and served as the president of her own company that specializes in placing physicians and advanced practitioners in positions with medical groups, hospitals, and other healthcare organizations. The expert recruited and placed physicians in a variety of practice settings, such as in medical groups, solo practices and partnerships, hospitals, universities, academic centers, and national clinics providing specialty services to the public. She was also involved with several trade associations in the physician recruitment industry and has served in various leadership roles for those associations.
Read more at ForensisGroup.