Does my Georgia expert need recent active practice or teaching to testify?
Recency is a central feature of Georgia’s medical-expert rule. A witness cannot rely on credentials earned long ago and then left dormant; the law looks for current, hands-on involvement in the relevant field as a condition of giving a standard-of-care opinion.
The active-practice or teaching requirement ¶
O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702 conditions a medical expert’s competency on actual, recent participation in the area of practice at issue. Under subsection (c)(2), the expert must have been regularly engaged in the active practice of the relevant specialty for at least three of the last five years, with enough frequency to support a reliable opinion about the procedure, diagnosis, or treatment in question. The window runs from the alleged negligence backward, so the relevant five years are measured against the date of the claimed malpractice, not the date of trial. The idea is that someone currently engaged in the work understands the prevailing standard of care far better than someone whose experience has gone stale.
Teaching can satisfy the requirement alongside clinical practice. The statute treats three of the last five years spent teaching the profession, as an employed faculty member of an accredited educational institution and with sufficient frequency, as an alternative to active practice. An expert who instructs in the relevant specialty on those terms may qualify even if their direct patient care has shifted.
Why this trips up otherwise-credible witnesses ¶
The recency rule is where many seemingly strong experts run into trouble:
- A retired physician with a distinguished record may no longer meet the active-practice threshold if the relevant five-year period contains fewer than three years of qualifying practice or teaching.
- A professional who has moved into administration, research, or an unrelated role may lack the recent, regular involvement the statute demands.
- An expert who practices broadly but rarely performs the specific procedure at issue may fall short on the frequency element.
Because the statute ties competency to that three-of-five-years window, the timeline of the expert’s career relative to the alleged malpractice is something to confirm early. An affidavit or trial opinion from someone who cannot show the required recency is vulnerable to challenge, which can unravel the case.
The bottom line ¶
Under O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702, a Georgia medical expert generally must show active practice or teaching in the relevant field for at least three of the five years preceding the alleged malpractice, with sufficient frequency, to be competent to testify about the standard of care. Verifying that recent involvement, not just an impressive history, is what keeps the expert, and the claim, on solid ground.
This article is for general educational and informational purposes only and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and Georgia law may change. For advice about a specific situation, consult a licensed Georgia personal injury attorney.