The greatest bias experts face is knowing the outcome of the alleged malpractice event. This was examined using expert trained reviewers for the Anesthesiology Closed Claims Project. Some cases submitted to the reviewers were changed so that the outcome (death, neurogic injury, permanant disability, temporary disability, mild inconvenience) differed from the bona fide case. The principal determinant predicting whether the reviewer would judge the medical care appropriate or below the standard of care was the outcome for the patient, not the care itself.
No matter how one tries to blind reviewers, the most important blinding must be the result for the patient. Standard of care is afterall immutable whether or not the patient had a perfect result of perfectly miserable result.
So in the end this expert’s behavior is really no better in function than any other’s, but it does help him sell his product.