The locality rule is the progenitor of the debates over the proper specialty
qualifications for an expert witness. The locality rule evolved before the
standardization of medical training and certification. During this period, there
was a tremendous gulf between the skills and abilities of university- trained
physicians and the graduates of the unregulated diploma mills. In many parts
of the country, parochialism and necessity combined to create the rule that a
physician’s competence would be determined by comparison with the other
physicians in the community, or at least in similar neighboring communities.
The strictest form of the locality rule required the expert to be from the same
or a similar community. This made it nearly impossible for injured patients to
find experts to support their cases, effectively preventing most medical
The underpinnings of the locality rule are diametrically opposed to
contemporary specialty training and certification. There is no longer a
justification for a rule that shelters substandard medical decision making on
the sole excuse that it is the norm for a given community. Many states have
explicitly abolished the locality rule for physicians who hold themselves out as
certified specialists. Unfortunately, the locality rule is being reinvigorated in
some states as a tort reform measure. This resurgence is driven by the
problem of access to care and facilities in rural areas.
Proponents of the locality rule often confuse access to facilities with physician
competence. A national standard of care implies that the rural physician will
have the same training and exercise the same level of judgment and diligence
as an urban practitioner. It does not require that the rural physician have the
same medical facilities available. If the community does not have facilities for
an emergency Cesarean section, the physician cannot be found negligent for
failing to do this surgery within the 15 minutes that might be the standard in a
well-equipped urban hospital.
Under a national standard, however, the physician must inform the patient of
the limitations of the available facilities and recommend prompt transfer if
indicated. This allows patients to balance the convenience of local care against
the risks of inadequate facilities. The protection of a national standard is
especially important as rural hospitals attempt to market or retain lucrative
medical services that their facilities are not properly equipped to handle.