Can medical experts be used for both sides?

When breaking down the different types of general damages in a personal injury lawsuit, plaintiffs and their attorneys always attempt to prove medical injuries and costs resulting from such injuries. In order to do this, expert medical testimony is needed to explain to the jury what type of injury the plaintiff has, how the defendant's actions caused that injury and how that injury impacts the plaintiff's life.

Medical testimony must be given by a medical expert since physicians are the only ones with sufficient knowledge to educate the court about medical injuries. Oftentimes, medical specialists who did not treat the plaintiff are used for this purpose.

Because of the basic right to cross examine a witness and refute expert testimony in court, both sides are allowed to use medical experts. The plaintiff may use one or more medical experts to testify as to the extent and type of injuries suffered by the plaintiff while the defendant may refute the expert testimony by getting his/her/its own medical experts to refute what the plaintiff's experts have to say.

If defendants were not allowed to use their own medical experts to refute medical testimony initiated by the plaintiff, then plaintiffs would get an unfair advantage since medical experts also lend credibility to personal injury cases and influence juries.  Plaintiffs would always win personal injury lawsuits.

An average person can not refute medical expert testimony or understand the complexities of medical terminology in the way that another medical expert in the field can.