What is one major limitation of expert testimony in malpractice cases?

Expert testimony is crucial in malpractice cases as it helps establish the standard of care expected for a medical professional and whether that standard has been breached. One major limitation of expert testimony is that experts must demonstrate relevance and reliability in their testimonies. This requirement serves to ensure that any opinions expressed in court will be based on sound scientific principles and applicable to the specifics of the case at hand.

Relevance means that the testimony must relate directly to the issues being considered by the court, while reliability pertains to the credibility of the methodologies used in forming an opinion. If the expert's methods are not generally accepted within the relevant field of study, their testimony could be deemed inadmissible. This limitation is essential as it protects the legal process from speculative or unfounded assertions that could mislead the jury or judge, thereby maintaining the integrity of the judicial system.

In contrast, the other options presented do not accurately reflect significant limitations that apply. The requirement that expert witnesses must have a specific medical degree does not encompass all scenarios, as some experts might hold various relevant qualifications or experience. The clause about not being able to speak on past cases does not pertain to limitations in the context of reliability and relevance of their testimony. Finally, requiring experts to be from unrelated fields contradict