This page is part of a private research subweb.  It is not  intended to offer complete information. 
      
Expert Witness
 


Guidelines to submit an article for publication on our main site  are here.

Pages in this section
Up
............................

 Disclaimer: Information contained in pages and articles on this site  provide general information and are not intended to provide legal advice on any specific legal matter or factual situation. This information is not intended to create or provide a lawyer-client relationship. We do not accept personal clients.

The information on this website is not legal advice. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel.

Expert Witness Generally is Not Required to be Licensed in the State of Testimony.

Almost uniformly, --- except for medical expert witnesses -- states which have considered the question have decided that a testifying expert on a professional subject is not required to have a license from the state certifying authority before he/she can testify.

"[E]ducation, training, knowledge, and experience in a given field are the factors that render a witness competent to testify as an expert and qualified to give an opinion on a subject within the scope of his or her expertise, rather than licensing by the state of the forum. In other words, it is not essential that an expert witness have a license for the profession in the state in which the expert testimony is given.... an expert witness is not rendered incompetent to give expert testimony simply on the ground that he or she is not registered nor conducts any practice in a particular state." 31Am. Jur. 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence at 50 (Footnotes omitted) (emphasis supplied.)

For a sample case, read the excellent language in a decision in the state of Washington.

Specific states are discussed below, in alphabetical order.

Note: medical expert witnesses are a different story, with a majority of states now requiring some in-state certification for testimony in medical malpractice cases.  See our note at the end of this article.

Arkansas - No need to be licensed in the state.

In Medlock v. State, 964 S.W.2d 196 (Ark. 1998), the Arkansas Supreme Court held that an Officer was qualified to testify as expert for prosecution in driving while intoxicated (DWI) trial on subject of hypoglycemic reactions, even though officer was not doctor or nurse, where officer testified that he had law enforcement training with regard to DWI detection, served 11 years as special- forces medic in army, and had specialized training on how to detect signs or hypoglycemic reactions.

[T]he rule is well settled that expert witnesses may be qualified by experience, knowledge, or training, and need not be licensed professionals. Id. at 198

In John H. Parker Const. Co. v. Aldridge, 847 S.W.2d 687 (Ark.1993), the Supreme Court held that the trial court did not err in permitting unlicensed excavation contractor to testify as expert in negligence action against licensed contractor for damage to trees from laying water line, where expert had been involved in laying water lines for 22 years and operated his own excavation business. The Court observed:

In Yandell v. State, 262 Ark. 195, 555 S.W.2d 561 (1977) we were asked to overturn the ruling of the trial court permitting a physician from Mexico to give expert medical testimony, although unlicensed in the United States. We held that expert testimony may be given by individuals qualified by experience, knowledge or training. We adhere to that standard. Id. at 688.

Colorado - No need to be licensed in the state.

In Corcoran v. Sanner, 854 P.2d 1376 (Colo. App. 1993), a condominium owner brought suit against an architect and contractors for negligence and breach of contract. On the issue of an unlicensed architect testifying as an expert witness, the Court of Appeals held:

We reject plaintiff' s contention that expert witnesses are disqualified from testifying in Colorado merely because they are not licensed here or do not perform their services here.

CRE 702 provides that if scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will aid the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact at issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, and training may testify in the form of an opinion. Thus, an architect unlicensed in Colorado is not disqualified from testifying as to the standard of care of architects here, provided that the out-of-state expert has a sufficient familiarity with the proper standard of care required by Colorado practitioners. Id. at 1381-1382.

Iowa -  No need to be licensed in the state.

In Bandstra v. International Harvester Co., 367 N.W.2d 282 (Iowa App.1985), the court held that a proper foundation was laid for the admission of testimony of expert witness who had worked in area of industrial safety for several years and taught safety administration at the university. The court held:

The lack of a license is not a bar to accepting a person as a witness. Id. at 289.

See also, Ganrud v. Smith, 206 N.W.2d 311 (Iowa 1973) (where expert witness was not a medical doctor or physician but had received Ph.D. in physiology, the court upheld the trial court' s decision to allow submission to jury of such witness' opinion testimony)

Illinois - Need to be licensed in the state, to prevent unauthorized practice of law.

In People v. West, 636 N.E.2d 1239 (Ill. App. 1994), the Court held that a witness who was not licensed to investigate fires was not qualified to testify as expert witness as to cause of fire in arson prosecution. The Court took the view that by imposing licensing requirement S.H.A. 225 ILCS 445/2(h)(4),3,4,14,28, the legislature felt strongly that person conducting arson investigations must be licensed in order to ensure that investigation was conducted in qualified, unbiased, and proper manner. (Because of this legislation, the courts cannot ignore the licensing requirement in qualifying a witness as an expert, particularly where such conduct by the witness could subject the witness to criminal prosecution. Id. at 1245); see also, Dolan v. Galluzzo, 396 N.E.2d 13, 16 (Ill. 1979) (We hold that, in order to testify as an expert on the standard of care in a given school of medicine, the witness must be licensed therein. Once the fact of such license has been established, it lies within the sound discretion of the trial court to determine if the witness is qualified to testify as an expert regarding the standard of care.)

Illinois seems to be one of those rare states that thinks giving testimony about a profession is the practicing of that profession, which the licensing statutes make illegal. That line of reasoning has been rejected by the other states that have had the question presented. See, e.g., the text at the cases of Kansas, Michigan and Minnesota below.

Indiana - No need to be licensed in the state.

In State v. Maudlin, 416 N.E.2d 477 (Ind. App. 1981), the court held that an engineer licensed to practice in another jurisdiction but not admitted to practice in Indiana could testify as expert witness. The Court observed:

In order for a witness to qualify as an expert, two elements must be met: (1) the subject of the inference to be drawn from the facts must be so distinctly related to some science, profession, business, or occupation as to be beyond the ken of laymen; and (2) the witness must have sufficient skill, knowledge, or experience in that field so as to make it appear that his opinion or inference will probably aid the trier in his search for the truth.

***Acceptance of the State'' s position would create a provincialism which would deprive our courts of the expertise and aid of world-renowned authorities. We therefore hold that a duly licensed practitioner of a profession is not barred from testifying in a court in this state merely because he has not been admitted to practice here. Id. at 481 (emphasis added);

See also, State v. Willian, 423 N.E.2d 668, 671 (Ind. App. 1981) (Thus, we are of the opinion that it is the education, training, knowledge, and experience in a given field rather than licensing by the state of the forum which renders a witness competent to testify as an expert and qualified to give an opinion upon a subject within the scope of his expertise.)

Kansas - No need to be licensed in the state.

In Dickey v. Corr-A-Glass, 601 P.2d 691 (Kan. App. 1979), the Court held that it was a reversible error for the trial court to exclude, on the sole ground that the witness was not licensed as a professional engineer in Kansas, expert testimony by a civil engineering professor. The Court made the following observations:

The propriety of one acting in a certain capacity contrary to a licensing statute is not relevant to the ability of an expert to impart knowledge within the scope of his special skill and experience that is otherwise unavailable to the jury. We hold that a witness may not be disqualified from testifying as an expert solely because he is not licensed in this state. Id. at 694.

Michigan - If not a medical malpractice case, no need to be licensed in the state.

In W. W. White Co. v. LeClaire, 181 N.W.2d 790 (Mich. App. 1970), the court held that the experience a of witness, who was an unlicensed graduate architect of an accredited university with seventeen years in blueprint and cost compilation analysis, competently qualified as a witness. (The principal issue presented on appeal is whether Mr. Edge' s testimony is the practice of architecture within the meaning of the statute. We think not. Id. at 791)

In cases involving medical malpractice, a Michigan statute imposes a more stringent standard. Tate Ex Rel. Estate of Hall v. Detroit Receiving Hosp., 642 N.W.2d 346, 348 (Mich. App. 2002) (Section 2169 provides in pertinent part: (1) In an action alleging medical malpractice, a person shall not give expert testimony on the appropriate standard of practice or care unless the person is licensed as a health professional in this state or another state and meets [certain omitted] criteria .)  As a result of legislative attempts to help the medical profession over what is construed as a particular malpractice crisis of doctors, several states now have requirements of licensing and practice before an expert can testify in the limited category of medical malpractice litigation.

Minnesota - No need to be licensed in the state.

In Hagen v. Swenson, 236 N.W.2d 161 (Minn. 1975), witness who was both neurologist and psychiatrist, but not a psychologist, although his background involved considerable work with psychological testing, was qualified to interpret Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory administered to plaintiff, despite fact that he was not a licensed psychologist

We reject plaintiff' s contention that these statutes act to prohibit the testimony of Dr. Leemhuis, who is not a licensed psychologist. They are licensing statutes that have no direct application to the qualifications of expert witnesses.... Lack of board certification is not a bar. Id. at 162

Missouri - No need to be licensed in the state.

Johnson v. State, 58 S.W.3d 496 (Mo. 2001) held that an expert witness may be qualified on foundations other than the expert' s license. Jones v. Grant, 75 S.W.3d 858 (Mo. App. W.D. 2002) court held that it was a reversible error to exclude expert witness' s testimony concerning amount of further necessary repairs and improvements on home in breach of contract action on sole ground that witness was not a licensed contractor. (Thus, an expert witness may be qualified on foundations other than the expert' s education or license. Id. at 863); see also, Childs v. Williams, 825 S.W.2d 4, 10 (Mo. App. 1992) (Conceivably a psychologist or other non-physician might attain a degree of knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education in medicine that would provide the foundation to become a medical expert.); Landers v. Chrysler Corp., 963 S.W.2d 275, 281 (Mo. App. 1997) (overruled on other grounds) (where a neuropsychologist who taught neurology and neurological surgery at a medical school was permitted to testify as a medical expert as to the causation of an organic brain injury).

Montana - Appears to be no need to be licensed in the state.

State v. Harkins, 281 P. 551, 556 (Mont. 1929). The trial court held not in error in permitting a nongraduate, unlicensed medical witness to testify to an autopsy. In re Spoya' s Estate, 282 P.2d 452 (Mont. 1955) (one may be an expert in field of foreign law, so as to be competent to testify as an expert, though he has not been admitted to practice in any jurisdiction)

Nebraska - No need to be licensed in the state.

Floyd v. Worobec, 537 N.W.2d 512 (Neb. 1995) upheld the trial court' s decision that expert witness who practiced in area of chiropractic care but was not licensed to practice was not competent to testify that injuries suffered by motorist in automobile accident were of permanent periodic nature and as to future course of treatment. ([A] duly licensed and practicing chiropractor is competent to testify as an expert witness within the scope of his knowledge according to his qualifications in the field of chiropractics, and the weight of his testimony is a question for the jury. Id. at 517, citing Fries v. Goldsby, 80 N.W.2d 171, 178 (Neb. 1956))

New Mexico - No need to be licensed in the state.

The determination of the qualifications of an expert is a question for the trial judge and is a matter entrusted to his sound discretion. State v. Padilla, 347 P.2d 312, 318 (N.M. 1959). Baerwald v. Flores, 930 P.2d 816 (N.M. App. 1996) (Trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that a biomechanical engineer was qualified to testify as expert in biomechanics in an automobile accident case involving temporomandibular joint (TMJ) injury, notwithstanding that the engineer lacked engineer' s license and statute defined the practice of engineering as including giving of expert testimony, where witness had bachelor' s degree and master' s degree in mechanical engineering and other qualificatgions to explain engineering to jury.)

In Madrid v. University of California, 737 P.2d 74 (N.M. 1987), while holding that the phrase expert medical testimony under the Workers' Compensation Act does not mean that only one licensed to practice medicine under licensing law may testify concerning relationship between disability and employment, the Supreme Court observed:.

The inescapable conclusion is that there is no legislative intent to limit the qualification of expert testimony to licensed physicians. Even expert testimony is not binding on the trier of facts... The phrase "expert medical testimony" speaks to the type of specialized knowledge, i.e., medical knowledge, essential to show the necessary connection between the work-related injury and any disability. The phrase does not go beyond that to require a specific type of license as a qualifying requirement for one offered as an expert to give competent medical information. Id. at 77.

North Dakota - No need to be licensed in the state.

North Dakota. North Dakota has not ruled on attorneys, but has general law that is applicable. Myer v. Rygg, 2001 ND 123, 630 N.W.2d 62, stating:

An expert need not be a specialist in a highly particularized field if his knowledge, training, education, and experience will assist the trier of fact. The rule does not require an expert to have a formal title or to be licensed in any particular field, but recognizes it is the witness's actual qualifications that count by providing that an expert can be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education. We have previously held a trial court does not abuse its discretion by admitting expert testimony whenever specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact, even if the expert does not possess a particular expertise or specific certification.

And

Rule 702 of the North Dakota Rules of Evidence "envisions generous allowance of the use of expert testimony if the witnesses are shown to have some degree of expertise in the field in which they are to testify."

Kluck v. Kluck, 561 N.W.2d 263 (N.D. 1997) a psychologist was qualified to give expert opinion on child custody Id. The fact that psychologist was not licensed in the state, and that his education and training were primarily in adult clinical psychology, not child psychology, did not render him unqualified to give expert testimony on child custody Id., citing Anderson v. A.P.I. Co. of Minnesota, 559 N.W.2d 204 (N.D. 1997).

[Evidence] Rule [702] governing expert witnesses does not require expert to have formal title or be licensed in any particular field, but recognizes that it is witness' actual qualifications that count by providing that expert can be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education; thus, expert witness' knowledge may be derived from reading alone in some fields, from practice alone in some fields, or as is more commonly the case, from both.

Ohio - Generally, no need to be licensed in the state.

In State v. Awkal, 667 N.E.2d 960, 968 (Ohio 1996), the court noted that determinations of expert witness qualifications to testify are within the discretion of the trial court. Id. (Dr. Hewitt had experience that may have been helpful to the jury. However, he was not individually licensed as a psychologist in Ohio. Nor was he qualified as a forensic psychologist. As a non-physician, Dr. Hewitt was not competent to give an opinion on the sanity issue. The trial court had the discretion to exclude the testimony. Id. (emphasis added.)

In cases involving medical malpractice, Ohio rules of evidence impose a more stringent standard. In Steele v. Buxton, 639 N.E.2d 861 (Ohio App. 1994), while holding that a general practitioner was qualified to testify as expert on procedure performed by surgeon, the Court observed on the necessity for licensure:

Evid. R. 601 governs the competency of witnesses and provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Every person is competent to be a witness except: D) A person giving expert testimony on the issue of liability in any claim asserted in any civil action against a physician, podiatrist, or hospital arising out of the diagnosis, care, or treatment of any person by a physician or podiatrist, unless the person testifying is licensed to practice medicine and surgery, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or podiatric medicine and surgery by the state medical board or by the licensing authority of any state, and unless the person devotes at least one-half of his or her professional time to the active clinical practice in his or her field of licensure, or to its instruction in an accredited school. Id. at 862-863.

Oklahoma - No need to be licensed in the state.

Oklahoma has not ruled on attorneys, but has ruled in the medical field

Pierce v. State, 371 P.2d 924 (Okl. Cr. App. 1962) held that a medically trained witness was qualified to testify as medical expert though he was not licensed to practice medicine in Oklahoma. See also, Riggle v. State, 585 P.2d 1382, 1387 (Okl. Cr. 1978) (fact that a recent graduate of college of osteopathic medicine had accumulated no experience as a practicing physician and was unlicensed by the state at time he conducted the examination upon homicide victim' s body did not necessarily prevent him from testifying as an expert); William v. Perkins, 952 P.2d 483 (Okla. 1997) (To be qualified as expert, witness need not possess technical training and education, but may qualify based on knowledge, skill, and experience); Turner v. Dewbre, 530 P.2d 144, 145. (Okl. App. 1974)(A license from the state is not a necessity to testify as a medical expert.) (A witness need not have some particular academic degree or indeed any formal training at all.)

South Dakota - No need to be licensed in the state.

Determination that an expert witness who had a doctor' s degree in physics and experience with surveys and preparation and use of contour maps was qualified to testify as an expert as to the flowage, volume, extent and depth of water in area following storm was not an abuse of discretion despite the fact that the expert was not licensed surveyor or civil engineer. Mulder v. Tague, 186 N.W.2d 884, 887 (S.D. 1971).

Tennessee - If not a medical malpractice case, no need to be licensed in the state.

In cases not involving medical malpractice claims, the Tennessee courts permit unlicensed experts to testify. Doochin v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 854 S.W.2d 109 (Tenn. App. 1993) (Insured' s witness, who was full-time arson investigator for fire department, was not disqualified as expert witness on ground that he did not have license as pivate investigator and even if licensing statute did apply to him, license was only one factor affecting his expertise).

However, in cases involving medical malpractice, Tennessee statute imposes a more stringent standard.But B even then, it can be waived. In Rose v. H.C.A. Health Services of Tennessee, Inc., 947 S.W.2d 144 (Tenn. App. 1996), the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that affidavit of medical expert who was not licensed to practice in Tennessee or in contiguous border state would be admissible in the medical malpractice case. (Tenn.Code Ann. ' 29-26-115(b) statutes provides: (b) No person in a health care profession requiring licensure under the laws of this state shall be competent to testify in any court of law to establish the facts required to be established by subsection (a) unless he was licensed to practice in the state or a contiguous bordering state a profession or specialty which would make his expert testimony relevant to the issues in the case and had practiced this profession or specialty in one of these states during the year preceding the date that the alleged injury or wrongful act occurred.... The court may waive this subsection when it determines that the appropriate witnesses otherwise would not be available.)

Texas - No need to be licensed in the state.

In Southland Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Tomberlain, 919 S.W.2d 822, 827 (Tex. App. Texarkana 1996,writ denied), the court clearly held that there is no requirement that expert witness hold professional license to render opinion about standard of care within particular licensed profession.

A requirement that an expert witness hold a professional license does not comport with the language or purpose of Rule 702. The rule is meant to insure that if specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact examine the evidence, a person who has acquired such knowledge through any one of a number of methods may testify based on that knowledge . . Requiring that a witness be licensed in order to testify as an expert is particularly unnecessary in cases in which the expert has previously held a license or comparable certification but for one reason or another has allowed it to expire. . . . Furthermore, training, education, or experience in a jurisdiction other than Texas may suffice to qualify a potential witness as an expert in courts of this state. Id. at 827-28 (citations omitted). .

In Southland, the trial court had excluded the defendants expert witness, ruling that the expert was not qualified to testify concerning the standard of care for insurance agents because he was not at that time, nor had he ever been, a licensed Texas recording agent. Id. at 826. The court of appeals held that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony simply because the expert did not hold a current license. Id. at 828.

In support of the expert's qualifications, the defendant demonstrated that the expert had been licensed previously in Texas as a soliciting agent, had been licensed in Kansas and Missouri as the equivalent of a Texas recording agent, that he had let his license expire simply because he had become too busy to sell insurance, that he was a state-approved insurance instructor, teaching all types of Texas insurance agents with regard to the technical and management skills necessary for the proper performance of their duties, and that he had been an insurance instructor at the University of Baltimore and at a Texas community college. Id.

State v. Northborough Center, Inc., 987 S.W.2d 187, 193 (Tex. App. 1999) (The witness did not have to be licensed to practice engineering, architecture, or landscape architecture to be qualified to give expert testimony on effects of taking in eminent domain proceeding)

And the other way round: a license in the profession in the state does not automatically an expert make. E.g., Broders v. Heise, 924 SW2d 148 (Texas 1996) quoting Whiting v. Boston Edison Co., 891 F.Supp. 12, 24 (D. MA, 1995): "Just as a lawyer is not by general education and experience qualified to given an expert opinion on every subject of the law, so too a scientist or medical doctor is not presumed to have expert knowledge about every conceivable scientific principle or disease."

Utah - No need to be licensed in the state.

State v. Kelley, 1 P.3d 546, 550 (Utah 2000)(expert was qualified to give opinion as to mentally disabled victim' s ability to consent to or understand consequences of sexual act.)

Licensing in and of itself is not dispositive of an expert's qualifications to offer an opinion.

Wisconsin - No need to be licensed in the state.

Brain v. Mann, 385 N.W.2d 227, 230 (Wis. App. 1986)(, the court clearly held that the admission of expert testimony is a matter of trial court discretion, but an expert witness may only testify within areas in which he or she is qualified. Id. (The qualification of an expert depends on experience, not on more formal attributes such as professional licensure.); Karl v. Employers Ins. of Wausau; 254 N.W.2d 255, 261 (Wis. 1977)

The qualification of an expert has historically been a matter not of licensure, but of experience.

Wyoming - Appears to be no need to be licensed in the state.

McCabe v. R.A. Manning Const. Co., Inc., 674 P.2d 699 (Wyo. 1983) (An  expert witness is one having superior knowledge of a subject acquired by professional, scientific, or technical training or by practical experience, or who possesses peculiar knowledge respecting the matter involved, but is not ordinarily possessed by lay persons.)

A Note on Medical Experts.

Medical expert witnesses are a separate story. Because of the power of the medical lobby, a majority of states have legislation that restricts which doctors may testify in medical malpractice actions. In 2011, the American Medical Association (AMA) approved model legislation for expert witnesses. Like the Florida expert medical expert witness statute, the AMA model legislation requires out-of-state medical expert witnesses obtain an in-state certificate before providing testimony