596 Assuming that he became a claimant in a lawsuit against the apartment owner, serving as the patient/claimant’s expert witness, an allergist could be asked these sample questions. They appear in a seemingly random order, a manner com- monly employed by an experienced cross-examiner. 1. What respected, authoritative, and widely-accepted medical studies and research support the link between mold and this individual’s medical conditions? 2. Is the link a strong or weak association? 3. What is the typical period of exposure necessary to produce the disease? 4. Has the claimant shown any IgE reaction to the sus- pected allergens as confirmed by radioimmunoassay, skin, or other tests? 5. Did the physician (or an environmental expert performing accepted testing methodologies) sample the air in the suspected bedroom closet and perform such studies throughout the apartment to establish the specific mold species and exposure level? 6. What was, in fact, the dose level of specific molds to which the claimant was exposed? 7. Did the results of the allergy tests performed confirm allergic sensitization to the same specific molds found through environmental testing in the bedroom closet and apartment? 8. Did the allergist review the previous medical history of the claimant prior to his renting the apartment? 9. Can the allergist compare the claimant’s exposure to mold or other allergens in the outdoor environment versus exposure in the indoor environment? 10. What levels of each of those molds are commonly found outdoors? 11. Were there any baseline air samples taken of the bed- room closet, apartment, and outside air in the claim- ant’s apartment? 12. Is the allergist sufficiently comfortable with the valid- ity and methodology employed by the environmental consultant who conducted sampling to rely on those test results for providing a definitive statement of the specific allergen, exposure, dose, and likely response? 13. Is there a known rate of allergic response associated with the exposure and dose alleged to have occurred? 14. How much of the allergist’s opinion is based on claimant-reported exposure conditions and subjective symptoms versus the physician’s personal observation and knowledge of the underlying environmental con- ditions, pre-existing medical history, and objective findings? 15. Has the allergist personally designed and performed any medical studies using the scientific method (con- trol vs. non-control groups) to confirm the validity of the opinion that the indoor apartment exposure to the Curr Allergy Asthma Rep (2012) 12:590–598 specific molds in question under the extrapolated ex- posure and dose data are sufficient to a high degree of reliability in causing the specific medical illness and symptoms observed, after accounting for all confound- ing variables. 16. Has the allergist published the data or performed any studies and reviews of medical literature to confirm the proposed environmental or biological cause of the illness? 17. What position do the majority of clinical allergists take with regard to the medical literature, studies, and opin- ion of the testifying allergist on the biological and medical cause of this illness? An Attorney’s Perspective: The Clinician in the Legal Arena Clinical practice seeks scientific and medical accuracy with- out which the best treatment cannot be provided. A civil claim, by contrast, provides a forum for the resolution of disputes and most legal scholars argue (to the surprise of inexperienced medical experts) that it is not a truth-seeking forum at its core. The opposing attorneys are advocates. Their interest is in winning, not in enlightening the court. This distinction is felt by the expert when he/she undergoes intense examination, whether in deposition or trial. The intent of those questions, all designed to erode the expert’s credibility, may be to prepare to file a Daubert motion to have the testimony excluded or simply to win over a judge or a jury. How can the allergist, as a witness, prepare for such an encounter? The first rule is to be honest, accurate, and consistent in his/her opinions. Attorneys will attempt to impeach the expert’s integrity by demonstrating inconsis- tencies in his/her prior opinions referenced in scientific articles, depositions, and court testimonies. The expert must not stray outside his/her areas of expertise. He/she must be sure that the facts stated are both sufficient and reliable in supporting the proffered position. The second is to know those facts and their supporting bases well before encoun- tering opposing counsel. Finally, while it may be difficult, the witness should remain calm and rational in the face of what may seem to be foolish and/or insulting questions. The expert is not a combatant but rather a privileged participant [38•]. Conclusion This article has highlighted essential points, nuances, and considerations for the practicing physician who will be asked to render an expert medical opinion on the cause