Orthopedic Expert Witness

When orthopedic injuries become the subject of litigation, workers’ compensation disputes, or insurance disagreements, the parties involved often need an orthopedic expert witness to provide clear, objective medical opinions that help courts, arbitrators, and adjusters understand the medical issues at the center of the case. The role of an orthopedic expert witness is not to advocate for either side but to explain complex medical concepts, evaluate the quality of treatment, analyze causation, and offer opinions grounded in clinical evidence and peer-reviewed research.

Through Burnham Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Dr. Jeremy Burnham provides orthopedic expert witness services across the full spectrum of musculoskeletal cases. With more than 145 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, and scientific presentations, fellowship training at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and residency training at the University of Kentucky, Dr. Burnham brings a research-informed perspective to case analysis, independent medical examinations, causation opinions, standard-of-care evaluations, and testimony. This page outlines how orthopedic expert witness services work, what attorneys and parties should expect, the qualifications that differentiate effective expert testimony from superficial case review, and the state-by-state admissibility standards that govern expert testimony in the Gulf South region.

What an Orthopedic Expert Witness Does

An orthopedic expert witness is a physician with specialized training and clinical experience who is retained to provide medical opinions in legal proceedings. The expert’s role is educational and analytical: to help judges, juries, attorneys, arbitrators, and adjusters understand medical issues that are beyond the knowledge of non-physicians. This may involve explaining the nature of an injury, the expected recovery timeline, the appropriateness of treatment that was provided, whether a specific event caused or contributed to a condition, the extent of permanent impairment, or whether the care rendered met the applicable standard of care.

The expert witness does not serve as an advocate for the retaining party. While the attorney identifies the medical questions that need to be addressed, the expert’s obligation is to provide honest opinions based on the medical evidence. The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS) framework for medicolegal work emphasizes that the expert’s role is objective evaluation, not treatment, and that the IME physician “does not assume care of the patient” (Daniels et al., 2017). An effective expert witness will render the same opinion regardless of which side retains the engagement, because the conclusions flow from the clinical data, the imaging, the medical records, and the relevant scientific literature, not from the identity of the client.

In practice, orthopedic expert witness work involves several distinct activities: reviewing medical records, reviewing diagnostic imaging, conducting independent medical examinations when requested, preparing written reports, and providing sworn testimony at deposition or trial. Each of these activities requires a specific skill set, and the quality of the final work product depends on the thoroughness of every step in the process.

When Expert Witness Services Are Needed

Orthopedic expert witness services are needed whenever a legal or administrative proceeding involves medical questions that require specialized knowledge to answer. The economic stakes are significant: approximately 8.6 million nonfatal workplace injuries and 5,600 fatal injuries occur each year in the United States, with direct medical costs exceeding $67 billion and indirect costs exceeding $183 billion in recent estimates, and nearly one third of permanent workplace disabilities result from musculoskeletal disorders (Daniels et al., 2017). The most common contexts for orthopedic expert testimony include workers’ compensation disputes (causation, treatment necessity, maximum medical improvement, impairment ratings), personal injury litigation (motor vehicle accidents, slip-and-fall injuries, product liability claims involving orthopedic devices), medical malpractice cases (standard-of-care evaluations for surgical complications, delayed diagnosis, or treatment errors), disability determinations (Social Security, long-term disability insurance), and insurance coverage disputes (whether proposed treatment is medically necessary).

In each of these contexts, the central question is the same: what does the medical evidence show? The orthopedic expert witness provides the analytical framework to answer that question with the degree of precision and documentation that the legal process requires. Without expert testimony, courts and decision-makers would be left to interpret complex medical records, imaging studies, and treatment decisions without the specialized knowledge needed to understand what the evidence means.

Qualifications That Matter in an Orthopedic Expert Witness

The credibility of expert testimony depends heavily on the expert’s qualifications, and not all qualifications carry equal weight. Courts evaluate experts under standards derived from Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (federal) and its state-law equivalents, which require that testimony be based on sufficient facts, reliable methodology, and the reliable application of principles to the case. In practice, the following qualifications distinguish experts who can withstand rigorous cross-examination from those who cannot.

Board certification in orthopedic surgery and, where applicable, a subspecialty certificate in sports medicine, establishes baseline competency. Fellowship training at a recognized academic center demonstrates advanced specialization. Hospital and national-society leadership roles signal that the expert is recognized by peers as an authoritative voice in the specialty. Dr. Burnham serves as Vice Chair of the Musculoskeletal Service Line and Section Head of Orthopedic Surgery at Ochsner Medical Center — Baton Rouge, is a Castle Connolly Top Doctor (peer-nominated recognition), has held previous leadership roles with the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS), and is a current member of the American Orthopaedic Society for Sports Medicine (AOSSM) BOLD Leadership Cohort. These roles place him inside the national conversation on clinical standards, patient safety, and the evolving evidence base in orthopedic sports medicine.

The most powerful credential for an expert witness, however, is a substantive publication record in peer-reviewed journals combined with active participation in federally funded clinical research. An expert who has published original research on the medical topic at issue — and who sits on the investigator team for multicenter trials that define current practice — can testify from first-hand knowledge of the evidence base, not merely from general clinical experience. Dr. Burnham’s more than 145 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, and scientific presentations span the major domains of orthopedic sports medicine, including anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, knee biomechanics, meniscal pathology, shoulder surgery, and musculoskeletal outcomes research. He serves as site Principal Investigator for the NIH/NIAMS-funded STABILITY 2 randomized trial (NCT03935750) comparing ACL reconstruction techniques, and as site Principal Investigator for the Department of Defense-funded STaR Trial (NCT03543098). His ACL injury prevention research was recognized with the Game Changer Award from the Arthritis Foundation, and the AOSSM awarded him the Playmaker Award to study biologic augmentation of ACL surgery. His team physician experience spans professional sports teams, the University of Pittsburgh, and Southern University.

When an expert has authored studies on ACL reconstruction outcomes, meniscal injury patterns, or rotator cuff repair techniques, that research directly supports the methodology of the opinions offered. Dr. Burnham’s publication record means that testimony on these topics is grounded in the expert’s own contribution to the scientific literature, which withstands challenge more effectively than opinions based solely on clinical experience or review of others’ work.

Case Types in Orthopedic Expert Work

Orthopedic expert witness engagements span a wide range of case types, each with distinct analytical requirements. Knee cases are among the most common, including ACL tears and the quality of reconstruction, meniscal injuries and the appropriateness of repair versus resection, cartilage damage and its relationship to a specific event, total knee replacement and the timing of surgical intervention, and post-surgical complications. Shoulder cases include rotator cuff tears (causation, degenerative vs. traumatic, adequacy of repair), labral injuries, proximal humerus fractures, and shoulder arthroplasty outcomes.

Workers’ compensation cases present specific analytical challenges because the expert must address causation within the framework of state workers’ compensation law. The question is not simply whether an injury exists but whether the workplace event caused the condition, aggravated a pre-existing condition, or is unrelated to the employment. This requires integrating the mechanism of injury with the clinical findings, imaging, treatment timeline, and the medical literature on injury patterns and natural history. The underlying procedural framework (who can order a second medical opinion, who appoints an independent medical examiner, and what weight is given to each) varies by state; see the dedicated state-by-state section below and the companion IME for Workers’ Compensation page.

Medical malpractice cases require the expert to evaluate whether the treatment provided met the applicable standard of care. This involves analyzing the clinical decision-making at each stage of treatment, determining whether the diagnostic workup was adequate, assessing whether surgical technique was appropriate, and evaluating whether post-operative management was consistent with accepted practice. The standard-of-care analysis must account for what was known at the time of treatment, not what was discovered later. Most states also impose pre-suit requirements (affidavits of merit, certificates of review, or medical review panels) before a medical malpractice case can proceed; those requirements are summarized in the state-by-state section below.

The Expert Witness Engagement Process

The expert witness engagement typically begins when an attorney contacts the expert’s office to discuss a potential case. During this initial consultation, the attorney describes the case type, the medical issues involved, and the specific questions that need to be addressed. The expert evaluates whether the case falls within the scope of clinical and research expertise and whether there are any conflicts of interest.

If the engagement proceeds, the attorney provides the medical records, imaging studies, and any relevant discovery materials. The expert reviews these materials and may request additional records or imaging if the existing documentation is incomplete. Depending on the case, the expert may be asked to conduct an independent medical examination of the patient or plaintiff. After completing the review and any necessary examination, the expert prepares a written report or provides a verbal opinion to the retaining attorney.

If the case proceeds to discovery, the expert may be deposed by opposing counsel. At deposition, the expert testifies under oath about qualifications, methodology, findings, and opinions. If the case goes to trial, the expert may testify live before a judge or jury. Throughout this process, the expert’s role is to present medical opinions clearly, defend the methodology behind those opinions, and acknowledge the limits of the available evidence when appropriate.

Medical Records Review and Analysis

The foundation of effective expert witness work is a thorough, systematic review of the medical records. For orthopedic cases, the records may span years and include documentation from multiple providers: emergency departments, primary care physicians, orthopedic surgeons, physical therapists, pain management specialists, and imaging centers. The expert must organize this information chronologically, identify the key clinical events, and extract the findings that are relevant to the legal questions at issue. The AAOS-endorsed standard for medicolegal records review is that documentation “should avoid emotional language and derogatory remarks, not address conditions unrelated to the current claim, and be written so laypeople can understand the rationale” (Daniels et al., 2017).

A superficial records review, one that relies on summaries or skips large portions of the documentation, produces opinions that cannot withstand cross-examination. The standard for expert work is completeness: every operative report read in full, every imaging study reviewed (ideally the actual images, not just the radiology report), every physical therapy note examined for objective findings, and every prior treatment record checked for evidence of pre-existing conditions. This level of thoroughness is time-intensive, but it is what separates expert opinions that hold up under scrutiny from those that do not.

In orthopedic cases, the records review often reveals findings that are more informative than the conclusions drawn in the clinical notes themselves. For example, a treating physician may document a meniscal tear without distinguishing whether the MRI characteristics suggest an acute traumatic pattern or a chronic degenerative pattern. The expert’s review of the actual MRI images, combined with knowledge of the published literature on MRI accuracy for specific injury patterns, allows for a more precise causation analysis. Arner, Burnham et al. demonstrated that MRI sensitivity for meniscal ramp lesions ranges from 53.9% to 84.6%, with specificity from 92.3% to 98.7% (Arner, Burnham et al., 2017). Understanding these diagnostic performance parameters is essential when evaluating whether a missed finding represents a deviation from the standard of care or falls within the known limitations of the imaging modality.

Causation Analysis in Orthopedic Cases

Causation is the question that underlies most orthopedic expert witness engagements. Did the event cause the injury? Did the treatment cause the complication? Did the delay in diagnosis cause a worse outcome? The AAOS-endorsed framework requires three elements for medical causation: (1) a causal event, (2) an impairment, and (3) proof that the event can cause the impairment “within probability” — a threshold that most states apply as “more probable than not” (greater than 50%), though some jurisdictions apply thresholds as low as 1% for aggravation claims (Daniels et al., 2017). Answering these questions requires a structured analytical approach that integrates the mechanism of injury, the clinical and imaging findings, the temporal relationship between events, and the relevant medical literature.

In workers’ compensation and personal injury cases, the causation analysis often involves distinguishing between acute traumatic pathology and pre-existing degenerative conditions. An older worker who slips and falls at work may present with a rotator cuff tear on MRI. The question is whether the fall caused the tear (acute traumatic), made a pre-existing partial tear symptomatic (aggravation), or is unrelated to the fall (pre-existing degenerative condition that would have become symptomatic regardless). Answering this question requires evaluating the MRI characteristics of the tear, the clinical presentation at the time of injury, the presence or absence of prior shoulder complaints, and the published literature on the natural history of rotator cuff degeneration.

Dr. Burnham’s published research on bony morphology and injury risk provides an evidence-based framework for causation analysis. For example, research demonstrating that specific anatomic measurements (lateral femoral condyle ratio, posterior tibial slope) independently predict injury risk allows the expert to assess whether a patient’s anatomy created a predisposition that interacted with the injury event (Burnham et al., 2017). This type of analysis moves beyond simple “was there an injury” determinations to provide the nuanced, evidence-based opinions that courts require. Causation analysis must also acknowledge the impairment-versus-disability distinction recognized in the AMA Guides framework: impairment is a quantifiable medical deficit determined by objective criteria, while disability is an inability to perform vocational duties — the same impairment can result in vastly different disability levels depending on occupation (Daniels et al., 2017).

Standard of Care Evaluation

In medical malpractice cases, the expert must determine whether the care provided met the standard of care, defined as what a reasonably competent physician in the same specialty would have done under the same or similar circumstances. This evaluation requires the expert to assess clinical decision-making at each stage: Was the diagnostic workup adequate? Were the appropriate imaging studies ordered? Was the surgical indication appropriate? Was the surgical technique within the range of accepted practice? Was the post-operative management consistent with established protocols?

Standard-of-care evaluation requires expertise in the specific clinical area at issue. An expert opining on the adequacy of an ACL reconstruction must understand the current evidence on tunnel placement, graft selection, fixation methods, and concomitant procedures such as meniscal repair or anterolateral augmentation. Dr. Burnham’s role as site Principal Investigator for the NIH/NIAMS-funded STABILITY 2 trial and the Department of Defense-funded STaR Trial, combined with his participation in the AOSSM BOLD Leadership Cohort, keeps his clinical practice continuously aligned with the evolving evidence base in these areas. Similarly, an expert evaluating a rotator cuff repair must be familiar with the published literature on repair techniques, tendon healing biology, and the factors that influence re-tear rates. The ability to cite specific studies and established guidelines when explaining why a particular treatment decision did or did not meet the standard of care strengthens the expert’s testimony and makes it more difficult to challenge on cross-examination.

It is equally important to recognize what the standard of care is not. It does not require perfection. Complications can occur even with appropriate care, and the standard of care allows for reasonable variation in clinical judgment. The expert must evaluate the decision-making process, not simply the outcome, and must assess the care in light of what was known and available at the time it was provided. As part of this analysis, the expert may also evaluate surgical complications that are visible on post-operative imaging — for example, femoral or tibial tunnel malposition after ACL reconstruction, which can be quantified on CT and correlated with outcomes in the peer-reviewed literature.

State-by-State Expert Witness Standards: Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas, Alabama, and Florida

Expert witness testimony in orthopedic cases is governed by two sets of state-law requirements. First, each state applies an admissibility standard (Daubert-style gatekeeping or a state-specific variant) to decide whether the expert’s methodology is reliable enough for a judge or jury to hear. Second, most states impose pre-suit requirements in medical malpractice cases (typically an affidavit of merit or certificate of review, or in Louisiana a medical review panel) before a claim can proceed. Workers’ compensation expert testimony is additionally shaped by the state-specific IME and SMO frameworks summarized in the companion IME for Workers’ Compensation page. The summaries below describe the general framework in the six Gulf South states most relevant to regional referral patterns; specific application to an individual case depends on the facts and procedural posture, and parties should consult counsel licensed in the relevant jurisdiction.

Louisiana. Louisiana applies a Daubert-style reliability standard to expert testimony, codified at Louisiana Code of Evidence article 702 and interpreted in line with the federal framework. Medical malpractice claims against qualified healthcare providers under the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act require review by a medical review panel before suit can proceed, pursuant to La. R.S. 40:1231.8, with the panel’s opinion admissible at trial but not binding. Louisiana’s Medical Malpractice Act (La. R.S. 40:1231.1 et seq.) establishes the panel composition, qualifications, and procedure. In workers’ compensation cases, the employer-selected SMO under La. R.S. 23:1121(B) and the director-ordered IME under La. R.S. 23:1123 provide the procedural context for orthopedic expert testimony, with IME opinions afforded significant weight in resolving medical disputes.

Mississippi. Mississippi adopted Daubert gatekeeping in Mississippi Transportation Commission v. McLemore (2004), codified in Mississippi Rules of Evidence 702. Medical malpractice plaintiffs must file a certificate of expert consultation in accordance with Mississippi precedent (see Caldwell v. North Mississippi Medical Center and related procedural rules on pre-suit expert consultation), and must name a qualified medical expert to support the standard-of-care theory. Workers’ compensation expert testimony operates within the Mississippi Workers’ Compensation Commission framework under Miss. Code Ann. § 71-3-15, where the commission may order a medical examination and adjudicate conflicts between treating physician, employer-selected, and commission-ordered opinions.

Arkansas. Arkansas adopted Daubert reliability analysis in Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. Foote (2000) and applies it under Arkansas Rules of Evidence 702. Medical malpractice plaintiffs must comply with the expert-opinion requirements of Ark. Code § 16-114-206, which requires that allegations of medical negligence be supported by the testimony of a qualified expert familiar with the applicable standard of care. For orthopedic expert testimony in workers’ compensation, the framework established under Ark. Code § 11-9-511 (employer-selected medical examination) governs, and the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission evaluates expert opinions alongside other medical evidence in the record.

Texas. Texas applies a Daubert-style standard to expert testimony, articulated in E.I. du Pont de Nemours v. Robinson (1995) and codified in Texas Rules of Evidence 702. Medical malpractice plaintiffs must serve a qualified expert report on each defendant physician or healthcare provider under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 74.351; the report must be filed within 120 days of filing suit, and failure to serve a compliant report generally results in dismissal. In workers’ compensation cases, orthopedic expert testimony supports Required Medical Examinations under Tex. Labor Code § 408.004 and Designated Doctor examinations under § 408.0041, with Designated Doctor opinions receiving presumptive weight on the issues assigned (maximum medical improvement, impairment rating, extent of compensable injury, return-to-work capacity).

Alabama. Alabama adopted Daubert-style reliability analysis by statute, codified at Ala. Code § 12-21-160, which directs Alabama courts to apply the federal Daubert framework to expert scientific testimony. In medical malpractice cases under the Alabama Medical Liability Act (Ala. Code § 6-5-540 et seq.), plaintiffs must prove the applicable standard of care through a “similarly situated health care provider” as defined by Ala. Code § 6-5-548, and the expert must generally be licensed and practicing in the same specialty. Workers’ compensation expert testimony follows the framework of Ala. Code § 25-5-77, under which the employer or carrier selects the examining physician, and contested medical issues are resolved by the trial court rather than by a dedicated workers’ compensation tribunal.

Florida. Florida’s admissibility standard has moved between Frye and Daubert over the past decade. After the Florida Supreme Court’s adoption of the Daubert standard through rule amendment (effective 2019), expert testimony is evaluated under a Daubert-style reliability framework codified at Fla. Stat. § 90.702. Medical malpractice claims require pre-suit compliance with Fla. Stat. § 766.203, including an investigation and a corroborating written medical expert opinion before suit is filed; Fla. Stat. § 766.102 sets out the qualifications a medical expert must have to testify on the standard of care. Workers’ compensation expert testimony operates within the Fla. Stat. § 440.13 framework, which entitles each party to one party-selected IME per accident and permits the judge of compensation claims to appoint an Expert Medical Advisor under § 440.13(9) when medical opinions conflict.

Across all six states, the underlying principle is the same: expert testimony must be based on reliable methodology, must be offered by a qualified physician, and must be supported by adequate factual and scientific grounding. What varies is the procedural path: the pre-suit requirements in medical malpractice cases, the specific qualifications a testifying expert must possess, and the weight that state-appointed or commission-ordered physicians receive in workers’ compensation disputes. Understanding these distinctions is essential when retaining an expert whose opinions must ultimately survive admissibility challenges, cross-examination, and (in malpractice cases) threshold filings that precede the substantive merits.

The Expert Report

The written expert report is the document that formally sets out the expert’s qualifications, the materials reviewed, the findings, and the opinions. In federal litigation, Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure specifies the required contents of an expert report, including a complete statement of all opinions, the basis and reasons for each opinion, the facts and data considered, any exhibits to be used in support of the opinions, the expert’s qualifications, a list of all cases in which the expert has testified in the preceding four years, and the expert’s compensation.

State courts have varying requirements for expert reports, and the level of detail expected may differ depending on the jurisdiction and case type. In workers’ compensation proceedings, the expert’s written report may serve as the primary evidence of the medical opinion, particularly when testimony is submitted by report rather than live appearance. In all contexts, the report should be clear, well-organized, and written in language that is accessible to non-physicians while maintaining medical precision.

Every conclusion in the report must be traceable to specific findings in the records, examination, or imaging. Unsupported assertions weaken the report and create vulnerabilities during deposition. The most effective expert reports walk the reader through the reasoning process: here is what the records show, here is what the examination revealed, here is what the imaging demonstrates, and here is why these findings lead to this conclusion.

Deposition and Trial Testimony

Deposition testimony is the stage at which the expert’s opinions are tested through cross-examination by opposing counsel. The purpose of the deposition is to discover the full scope of the expert’s opinions, understand the basis for those opinions, and probe for weaknesses or inconsistencies. For the expert, deposition is an exercise in precision: answering the question that was asked, neither more nor less, and supporting every opinion with specific evidence from the case materials or published literature.

Effective deposition and trial testimony shares several characteristics. The expert listens carefully to each question before answering. Responses are clear and avoid unnecessary jargon. When a question is ambiguous, the expert asks for clarification rather than guessing at the intent. When the expert does not know the answer, the expert says so. When the available evidence supports a conclusion but does not establish it with certainty, the expert communicates that nuance rather than overstating the strength of the opinion.

The most challenging aspect of testimony is maintaining the same objectivity under cross-examination that was applied during the initial case analysis. An effective expert witness does not become defensive or adversarial when challenged. The testimony is the natural extension of the analysis: if the methodology was sound and the conclusions are well-supported, the testimony will hold up. Dr. Burnham’s experience presenting at national and international orthopedic meetings — including invited lectures at the AOSSM Annual Meeting, the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons Annual Meeting, and ISAKOS Congresses — translates directly into the ability to communicate complex medical reasoning under questioning.

The Role of Published Research in Expert Testimony

Published, peer-reviewed research is the gold standard for supporting expert opinions. When an expert can cite a specific study to support a conclusion, that opinion carries more weight than one based solely on clinical experience or anecdotal evidence. Courts evaluate the reliability of expert testimony in part by assessing whether the methodology is consistent with the scientific method and whether the opinions are supported by the relevant literature.

An expert who has authored relevant research, and who actively participates in the clinical trials that generate the evidence base, occupies a particularly strong position because that expert can testify from direct knowledge of the study design, data, limitations, and conclusions. Dr. Burnham’s published work includes systematic reviews of orthopedic surgical outcomes (Burnham et al., 2016, Arthroscopy), studies on diagnostic imaging accuracy (Arner, Burnham et al., 2017), investigations into injury risk factors based on bony morphology (Pfeiffer, Burnham et al., 2018), and analyses of treatment outcomes across multiple graft types (Hughes, Burnham et al., 2019). As site Principal Investigator for the NIH-funded STABILITY 2 trial and the DoD-funded STaR Trial, Dr. Burnham is a current contributor to the multicenter datasets that define the evolving evidence base in ACL reconstruction. When testimony touches on these topics, the expert can speak to the evidence base from the perspective of an author and contributor, not merely a consumer of the literature.

This distinction matters during cross-examination. Opposing counsel frequently challenges experts by pointing to studies that appear to contradict the expert’s opinion. An expert with a deep understanding of the relevant literature, including its limitations, methodological quality, and how individual studies fit into the broader body of evidence, can address these challenges more effectively than one who relies on a handful of familiar citations.

What Attorneys Should Expect

Attorneys retaining an orthopedic expert witness should expect a thorough, methodical approach to case evaluation. The expert should request all relevant medical records, imaging studies, and discovery materials before forming preliminary opinions. The expert should communicate clearly about the strength and limitations of the available evidence, including any aspects of the case that do not support the retaining party’s position. An expert who identifies weaknesses in the case early in the process provides more value than one who offers only favorable opinions, because it allows the attorney to address those weaknesses before deposition or trial.

Turnaround time for records review and report preparation varies with case complexity, but attorneys should expect that a thorough expert analysis requires adequate time. Rushed opinions produce reports that cannot withstand scrutiny. The expert should provide a realistic timeline at the outset and communicate proactively if additional records or imaging are needed to complete the analysis. Attorneys should also expect that the expert will address work-status questions in terms of both restrictions (risk-based: what the worker should or should not do) and limitations (capacity-based: what the worker can or cannot do), a distinction that carries significant legal and vocational implications (Daniels et al., 2017).

Finally, attorneys should expect consistency. The expert’s opinions at deposition should be consistent with the written report, and the trial testimony should be consistent with the deposition. This consistency is the natural product of sound methodology: when opinions are based on a thorough analysis of the evidence, they do not change because the audience changes.

The Bottom Line

An orthopedic expert witness provides objective, evidence-based medical opinions that help courts, attorneys, and decision-makers understand complex musculoskeletal issues. The value of expert testimony depends on the expert’s qualifications, the thoroughness of the case analysis, the clarity of the written and oral communication, and the expert’s familiarity with the admissibility standards and pre-suit requirements that govern the relevant jurisdiction. Through Burnham Orthopedics & Sports Medicine, Dr. Burnham offers expert witness services supported by more than 145 peer-reviewed publications, book chapters, and scientific presentations; fellowship training at a premier academic center; site Principal Investigator roles on two federally funded clinical trials (NIH STABILITY 2, DoD STaR Trial); hospital leadership roles (Vice Chair, Musculoskeletal Service Line; Section Head, Orthopedic Surgery); and a systematic methodology that emphasizes complete records review, evidence-based analysis, and clear documentation. To discuss a potential engagement, contact the office.

References

1. Arner JW, Herbst E, Burnham JM, et al. MRI Can Accurately Detect Meniscal Ramp Lesions of the Knee. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2017;25(12):3955-3960. DOI | PubMed
2. Burnham JM, Pfeiffer T, Shin JJ, Herbst E, Fu FH. Bony Morphologic Factors Affecting Injury Risk, Rotatory Stability, Outcomes, and Re-tear Rate After ACLR. Ann Joint. 2017;2:44. DOI | Full-Text PDF
3. Pfeiffer T, Burnham JM, Hughes JD, et al. An Increased Lateral Femoral Condyle Ratio Is a Risk Factor for ACL Injury. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2018;100(10):857-864. DOI | PubMed
4. Burnham JM, Howard JS, Hayes CB, Lattermann C. MPFL Reconstruction With Concomitant Tibial Tubercle Transfer: A Systematic Review. Arthroscopy. 2016;32(4):749-760. DOI
5. Hughes JD, Burnham JM, Hirsh A, et al. Comparison of Short-term Biodex Results After Anatomic ACLR Among 3 Autografts. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(5):2325967119847630. DOI | PubMed | Full-Text PDF
6. Daniels AH, Kuris EO, Palumbo MA. The role of the orthopaedic surgeon in workers’ compensation cases. J Am Acad Orthop Surg. 2017;25(3):e45-e52. DOI | PubMed

Frequently Asked Questions