Independence, Conflicts and Disclosure

One method, whichever side calls

The same review method, the same fee schedule and the same reporting standards apply to an inquiry from counsel for a patient, counsel for a clinician or county, an insurer, or a healthcare organization. Dr. Gill's conclusions may support, limit or contradict the position of the party that retained him. He reports adverse findings to retaining counsel as clearly as favorable ones, and he identifies evidence that cuts against his own opinion in any written report.

Two guardrails make that real rather than rhetorical. First, he will not provide a substantive opinion on the strength of a selective narrative; a view expressed in an initial call is about fit and scope, not about the merits. Second, opinions follow the record: when new evidence changes the factual foundation, the opinion is reassessed and the change is documented with its reasons.

Fees are never contingent

Compensation is for professional time and is set out in a written fee schedule before work begins. It is never contingent on the content of an opinion, the outcome of a case or the amount of any recovery, and payment is not deferred until the case resolves. Physician ethics prohibit outcome-contingent compensation for testimony (AMA Opinion 9.7.1), and California's rules for lawyers prohibit paying a witness contingent on the content of testimony or the outcome of the case. The same schedule applies to every party.

Conflict screening before records are sent

Every inquiry is screened before any medical records change hands. The screen asks for:

• every party, facility, clinician group, contractor, management company and insurer involved;
• the forum and the dates of the events;
• whether Dr. Gill has worked for, been employed by, contracted with, been in a dispute with, or published research or commentary about any of them;
• whether any patient involved has been under his care, or any clinician involved is a current colleague;
• any personal or financial interest in the outcome; and
• whether he has previously reviewed the same facts for anyone.

Matters involving Dr. Gill's current or former employers, their affiliates or contractors, any organization with which he has a pending or past legal or contractual dispute, or any patient he has treated are declined. Matters involving other organizations he has written about receive a specific conflict and role assessment and are declined or disclosed in writing before any records are sent. Matters in which he has any personal or financial interest in the outcome are declined. Professional guidance in correctional medicine (American College of Correctional Physicians) treats recent work at the involved institution, and work for the involved healthcare vendor, as potential conflicts, and that guidance is applied here.

Publications are disclosed, not hidden

KPSGill.com publishes research and commentary on healthcare governance, medical regulation, clinical AI and healthcare organizations — including correctional healthcare organizations in California. Federal rules require a retained testifying expert's report to list publications from the previous ten years (FRCP 26(a)(2)(B)), and the requirement is not limited to peer-reviewed work. Opposing counsel will read what an expert has written.

Dr. Gill therefore maintains a publication register, separated by type, and gives it to retaining counsel at the outset so that any writing with a bearing on the matter can be assessed before counsel relies on him. Published research remains published, with its dates and corrections; nothing is removed to make an engagement easier.

Roles are kept separate

A consulting reviewer, a retained testifying expert, a treating physician and a fact witness are different roles with different obligations. Dr. Gill records each engagement by role from the start, so that a disclosure list never counts a treating-physician deposition as expert testimony or a consulting review as a designation. Counsel is responsible for the legal consequences of designation; he is responsible for being clear about which role he has been asked to fill.

Scope discipline

An opinion is offered only where his training and recent, substantive experience support it. Emergency-department standard of care, procedural specialties, obstetrics, psychiatry, nursing practice, toxicology, pathology and EHR forensics belong to other experts, and he says so early. A generalist who stretches an opinion to fit a case serves no one, least of all the party relying on it.

The publication and the practice are separate

Consulting engagements are never written about on KPSGill.com. Case materials, parties, strategy and opinions never enter the site's research library. Accepting an inquiry is not an endorsement of a party, product or organization, and the site's editorial work does not depend on any consulting relationship. If a future commissioned project ever involves a relationship that a reader would want to know about, it will be disclosed on the page concerned.