Is there a difference between a treating physician and an expert?

There is more in Beasley v. Barrand, supra, that should be reviewed. It appears to distinguish witnesses who were engaged in treatment by noting that the three doctors whose reports were being considered were not involved in this way (see: paras. 64 and 65). This does not suggest that, if they had been treating physicians, the three doctors would have been free to offer opinions without concern for rule 53.03. Treating professionals do stand apart. They are present during the progress of any injury suffered by a plaintiff. They may give evidence as to their observations of the plaintiff and their description of the treatment provided. This is factual and not opinion evidence. Simply put, a treating physician or other treating professional who limits his or her evidence in this way does not need to be qualified and is not treated as an expert. It is when the witnesses seeks to offer opinions as to the cause of the injury, it’s pathology or prognosis that the evidence enters into the area of expert opinion requiring compliance with rule 53.03.