Expert Witnesses Debate Standard of Care in Medical Procedure Testimony

The Medical Board of California Panel B Meeting on May 14, 2025, focused on critical discussions surrounding medical standards and expert testimonies in a recent case involving aesthetic procedures. The meeting highlighted the complexities of determining the standard of care in medical practice, particularly in light of recent FDA warnings and the qualifications of expert witnesses.

One of the central discussions revolved around the testimony of Dr. Rogers, who was criticized for not being aware of a newly published FDA warning regarding the use of Renuvion for aesthetic purposes. It was argued that it is unreasonable to expect physicians to stay updated on every FDA announcement, especially given the politicized nature of medical guidance. This point raised questions about the accountability of doctors in rapidly evolving medical environments.

Dr. Ng's expert report was also scrutinized. While she is a board-certified plastic surgeon, her claims lacked substantial evidence and did not align with community standards of care. In contrast, the defendant's experts provided thorough support for their claims, grounding their opinions in peer-reviewed literature and established medical practices.

The meeting further examined the testimony of Dr. Swanson, who clarified that anticoagulation was not required in the specific case discussed. His insights were based on extensive research and collaboration with other experts in the field, reinforcing the importance of evidence-based practice.

Dr. Ruben, another key expert, was recognized for his significant contributions to plastic surgery education and practice. His extensive experience and leadership in a respected program positioned him as a credible witness in the ongoing discussions about standards of care.

The meeting concluded with a strong emphasis on the importance of adhering to established medical standards, such as the Caprini score for assessing pulmonary embolism risk. The panel expressed confidence in the appropriateness of Dr. Rogers' treatment approach, advocating for the weight of the Administrative Law Judge's opinion in the case.

Overall, the discussions underscored the challenges faced by medical professionals in navigating standards of care amidst evolving regulations and the critical role of expert testimony in legal proceedings. The Medical Board of California continues to evaluate these issues as they seek to uphold the integrity of medical practice in the state.