Evidencing in medical trials for damages is difficult, and it requires not only knowledge in the field of law, but also in the field of medicine. The main impediment to fluent proceeding in medical matters which requires to be strongly emphasised is a vast difficulty for courts in taking evidence by an expert within reasonable time. Such evidence is generally necessary in every case because there is a necessity to learn medical facts from the perspective of specialist knowledge (Article 278 § 1 of CPC). The problematic nature of damages for so called medical errors has gained more and ore significance, both because of the growing number of claims and the damages paid in relation thereto and the rising costs of insurance against those events incurred by healthcare centers. In such legal circumstances, it is worth indicating the extent to which the evidence by an expert doctor is taken in medical proceedings and the significance thereof for a proper course of the proceedings. Nevertheless, frequently opinions by experts are rather far from being objective. Often, as a result of falsely interpreted solidarity of representatives of the profession, experts disregard the lack of knowledge and diligence of a doctor and the organisational omissions in health care centers. Their opinions are very often unclear ambiguous, posing different hypotheses and the possibilities of damage which do not assist the court in properly assessing the events in matters for compensation. Because of that, a higher standard of conduct for expert doctors should be considered, the manner in which they are appointed and an improvement of the effectiveness of their work