Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 26. EVIDENCE · CHAPTER 2. SUBPOENAS AND WITNESSES · Part 6. Expert Witness Qualifications -- Medical Malpractice
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 (2026)

Medical Malpractice Expert Witness Qualifications

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 26
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 6
  5. 26-2-601 Medical malpractice expert witness qualifications

TITLE 26. EVIDENCE

CHAPTER 2. SUBPOENAS AND WITNESSES

Part 6. Expert Witness Qualifications -- Medical Malpractice

Medical Malpractice Expert Witness Qualifications

26-2-601. Medical malpractice expert witness qualifications. (1) A person may not testify as an expert witness on issues relating to negligence and standards of care and practice in an action on a malpractice claim, as defined in 27-6-103, for or against a health care provider, as defined in 27-6-103, unless the person:

(a) is licensed as a health care provider in at least one state and routinely treats or has routinely treated within the previous 5 years the diagnosis or condition or provides the type of treatment that is the subject matter of the malpractice claim or is or was within the previous 5 years an instructor of students in an accredited health professional school or accredited residency or clinical research program relating to the diagnosis or condition or the type of treatment that is the subject matter of the malpractice claim; and

(b) shows by competent evidence that, as a result of education, training, knowledge, and experience in the evaluation, diagnosis, or treatment of the disease or injury that is the subject matter of the malpractice claim against the health care provider, the person is thoroughly familiar with the standards of care and practice as they related to the act or omission that is the subject matter of the malpractice claim on the date of the incident upon which the malpractice claim is based.

(2) If the malpractice claim involves treatment that is recommended or provided by a physician as defined in 37-3-102, a person may not testify as an expert witness with respect to issues of negligence or standards of care and practice concerning the treatment unless the person is also a physician.

(3) A person qualified as an expert in one medical specialty or subspecialty is not qualified to testify with respect to a malpractice claim against a health care provider in another medical specialty or subspecialty unless there is a showing that the standards of care and practice in the two specialty or subspecialty fields are substantially similar. This subsection (3) does not apply if the subject matter of the malpractice claim against the health care provider is unrelated to the relevant specialty or subspecialty.

History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 49, L. 2005.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2023 · leading case: Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 (Mont. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 (Mont. 2012). · cites it 41× “The court found that “the requisite qualifications for expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases are set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 ,” and that because Dr.”
Kipfinger v. G.F. Obstetrical, 2023 MT 44 (Mont. 2023). · cites it 12× “702-03 and § 26-2-601, MCA, govern whether a proffered medical expert is qualified to render the expert medical testimony required for proof of the standard of care and breach elements of a medical malpractice claim.”
McColl v. Lang, 2016 MT 255 (Mont. 2016). · cites it 16× “Hangee-Bauer satisfied the expert witness requirements under § 26-2-601, MCA. ¶6 At trial, the jury found Lang departed from the standard of care applicable to a naturopathic physician in his treatment of McColl, which resulted in damages.”
Melton v. Speth, 425 P.3d 700 (Mont. 2018). · cites it 28× “Section 26-2-601, MCA, considered in conjunction with M.”
Baker v. Univ. Physicians Healthcare, Wittman, Arizona Bd. of Regents, 269 P.3d 1211 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 13-64-401 ; Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 ; N.J. Stat. Ann.”
Hastie v. Alpine Orthopedics & Sports Med., 2015 MT 346 (Mont. 2015). · cites it 7× “¶18 The District Court relied on § 26-2-601(2), MCA, to exclude proposed testimony by Dr.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601(1) — 3 cases
Kipfinger v. G.F. Obstetrical, 2023 MT 44 (Mont. 2023). “702-03 and § 26-2-601, MCA, govern whether a proffered medical expert is qualified to render the expert medical testimony required for proof of the standard of care and breach elements of a medical malpractice claim.”
Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 (Mont. 2012). “The court found that “the requisite qualifications for expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases are set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 ,” and that because Dr.”
McColl v. Lang, 2016 MT 255 (Mont. 2016). “Hangee-Bauer satisfied the expert witness requirements under § 26-2-601, MCA. ¶6 At trial, the jury found Lang departed from the standard of care applicable to a naturopathic physician in his treatment of McColl, which resulted in damages.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601(1)(a) — 3 cases
Melton v. Speth, 425 P.3d 700 (Mont. 2018). “Section 26-2-601, MCA, considered in conjunction with M.”
Kipfinger v. G.F. Obstetrical, 2023 MT 44 (Mont. 2023). “702-03 and § 26-2-601, MCA, govern whether a proffered medical expert is qualified to render the expert medical testimony required for proof of the standard of care and breach elements of a medical malpractice claim.”
McColl v. Lang, 2016 MT 255 (Mont. 2016). “Hangee-Bauer satisfied the expert witness requirements under § 26-2-601, MCA. ¶6 At trial, the jury found Lang departed from the standard of care applicable to a naturopathic physician in his treatment of McColl, which resulted in damages.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601(2) — 1 case
Hastie v. Alpine Orthopedics & Sports Med., 2015 MT 346 (Mont. 2015). “¶18 The District Court relied on § 26-2-601(2), MCA, to exclude proposed testimony by Dr.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601(3) — 1 case
Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 (Mont. 2012). “The court found that “the requisite qualifications for expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases are set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 ,” and that because Dr.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601(l) — 1 case
Beehler v. E. Radiological Assocs., P.C., 2012 MT 260 (Mont. 2012). “The court found that “the requisite qualifications for expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases are set forth in Mont. Code Ann. § 26-2-601 ,” and that because Dr.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.