PA Testified in High Profile Case

Recently, Physician Associate Eitan Negri took the stand as a fact witness to testify about his care of Lindsay Clancy—the defendant in a trial followed closely by thousands, if not millions, across the country. While I haven’t been live-streaming every second, a text from a malpractice lawyer friend tipped me off that a PA was testifying, and I had to tune in.

LIVE: Lindsay Clancy trial Day 7

You can review this directly by watching the first 23 minutes of Day 7 of the trial.

Writing this for the Academy of Physician Associates in Legal Medicine (APALM.net), I see clear takeaways from Negri’s testimony that apply to clinicians called as fact witnesses, while also highlighting crucial distinctions for those serving as medical experts or named defendants. As a fact witness, Negri was not offering expert opinion on the standard of care nor defending against liability; he was authenticating his record and detailing his direct treatment of the patient. Whether you take the stand as an expert consultant, a treating clinician, or a named defendant, there is much to learn from the poise and clarity Negri displayed.

Lesson 1: Clearly Identify Yourself and Your Profession

I commend him for leading with "Physician Associate" before adding "Physician Assistant" to ensure clarity for those more familiar with the older terminology—even if the prosecuting attorney still managed to call him a "Physician's Assistant" later.

Beyond personal titles, Negri clearly defined the team-based structure of his care. By explicitly describing his relationship with the attending physicians, he established the clinical context of the encounter. Rather than simply stating he treated the patient, he clarified that his plan was formulated "with an attending physician" and executed within a collaborative team structure. Under defense questioning, he specifically identified Dr. Jeffrey Anderson as a trauma surgeon and attending physician in the ICU, clarifying for the jury who led the clinical team.

This contextual clarity is essential in legal medicine. It isn't a question of capability—Physician Associates across the country practice with high degrees of autonomy and manage complex clinical scenarios daily. Rather, it is about accuracy on the stand. For a named defendant, establishing these collaborative relationships delineates boundaries of legal liability. For a neutral fact witness, articulating your specific role explains why you do or do not have direct knowledge of certain clinical decisions. Negri clearly stated what fell within his direct scope while directing questions about other aspects—such as blood transfusions and spinal injuries—to the appropriate consulting services, even when pressed by the defense to speculate.

Lesson 2: The Power of Contemporaneous and Accurate Charting

Negri’s testimony serves as a real-world validation of the dictum: "If you don't document it, it didn't happen". Throughout his examination, he relied heavily on his contemporaneous procedure notes rather than memory alone—a hallmark of a defensible witness. When questioned about specific measurements of the defendant's injuries, he stated, "If that's what my note says, then that's what it was".

Negri anchored his testimony strictly in his procedure notes, relying on objective data—such as repairing a laceration with three sutures on one wrist and one suture for a 2 cm cut on the other. However, the cross-examination over whether the lacerations were "superficial" or "deep" highlights a critical trap in legal medicine. Clinically, a volar wrist wound extending 3 cm in actual depth would sever critical neurovascular structures; yet Negri confirmed under direct examination that the cuts did not extend past subcutaneous tissue or require surgical subspecialty repair. The dispute arose when defense counsel read from the attending trauma surgeon’s admission note describing a "3.5 cm deep laceration". While clinicians easily recognize that the surgeon likely documented length rather than depth, such phrasing discrepancies become primary battlegrounds in court. Attempting to explain away or speculate on another provider’s documentation creates a significant minefield for fact witnesses. Rather than taking the bait to reconcile the attending's error, Negri remained firmly anchored to his own documented observations. Ultimately, his testimony demonstrates a foundational principle for medical witnesses: when clinical records collide, strict fidelity to your own direct observations is your strongest protection.

Our procedure notes do far more than justify billing codes—they are literally testimony in waiting. But in high-profile cases, the scrutiny doesn't stop at your written words; your actual clinical handiwork can end up on full display. During Negri’s examination, the prosecution didn't just read his documentation—they admitted close-up, high-definition photographs of his wrist closures directly into evidence as trial exhibits, broadcasting his simple interrupted sutures and Steri-Strips to the jury (and over 41,000 live-stream viewers on YouTube).

It’s a stark, surreal reminder for every practicing clinician: you never know when a note you typed at 2:00 AM—or a laceration repair you completed in a busy trauma bay—will be projected on a courtroom screen to be dissected by attorneys, jurors, and internet armchair quarterbacks alike. When you’re putting needle to skin, always suture like your work is destined for prime-time television—because one day, it just might be!

Lesson 3: Stick to the Facts and Resist the Expert Trap

The final lesson from Negri's testimony is the art of the disciplined answer. As a fact witness, your sole duty is to authenticate your record and state what you personally observed or performed. You are not there to offer opinions on the overall standard of care, accept or deflect liability, or play the role of an overarching medical expert.

Throughout his cross-examination, defense counsel repeatedly pushed Negri for opinions outside his direct scope—asking about the source of the patient's internal bleeding, details surrounding her cardiac arrest, and specialty consultations. A less disciplined witness might have been tempted to theorize or display their broader medical knowledge. Instead, Negri remained firm and neutral, offering concise responses like: "I don't know specifically... I'd have to refer back to the imaging reports," or simply, "I wasn't there."

By sticking to concise, factual answers like "Correct," "Yes, sir," and "No, sir," he prevented counsel from drawing him into debates over care he didn't personally deliver. Remaining disciplined prevents counsel for either side from pulling a fact witness beyond their direct knowledge or into expert commentary, ensuring your testimony serves its true legal purpose: authenticating your record without becoming entangled in broader trial strategies.

Conclusion: Know Your Role and Take Pride in It

At the end of the day, Eitan Negri’s performance on the witness stand reminds us that professional poise in court is a direct result of clinical discipline at the bedside. By asserting his identity as a Physician Associate, using contemporaneous charting as his anchor, and staying strictly within his clinical scope for that case, he turned a high-pressure cross-examination into a masterclass in competence, poise, and clear communication.

Whether repairing a laceration in a busy trauma bay or explaining it to a jury (and 41,000 live-streamers), remember that your medical record is your testimony in waiting. Stick to the facts, respect the team structure, take immense pride in your clinical skill, and for the sake of the profession—suture like a PA!