¶ 18. (dissenting). In Alt v. Cline, 224 Wis. 2d 72, 589 N.W.2d 21 (1999), our supreme court determined that a medical expert witness has a right to refuse to provide expert testimony absent compelling circumstances. In recognizing that a doctor has a privilege to be free from testifying against his will, the supreme court observed that:
A person who has expended resources to attain specialized knowledge should not be forced to part with that knowledge upon demand, absent compelling circumstances. We do not force lawyers to provide services to anyone who walks in the door. We do not force other professionals to provide their services absent compelling circumstances. We see no reason to treat experts in a court of law any differently.
Id. at 88.
¶ 19. In Alt, an obstetric malpractice case, a doctor who provided prenatal care to the mother sought to be relieved of the court-imposed obligation to testify as an expert witness for the plaintiff in the tort action. Agreeing with the doctor that no compelling need was shown for his expert testimony, the supreme court flatly rejected an identical argument presented here:
[The Alts] argue that he is a unique witness because he provided prenatal care to Dawn Alt and wrote her discharge summary. We disagree. Dr. Acosta may be unique with respect to the prenatal care provided to Dawn Alt and he must testify as to his observations in that role. However, he does not appear to be unique with respect to the question asked. Dr. Acosta's prenatal care of Dawn Alt and authoring her discharge summary make him no more and no less qualified than any other obstetrician to give an expert opinion ....
Alt v. Cline, 224 Wis. 2d at 90.
*374¶ 20. In discussing whether there was a compelling need for Dr. Acosta to testify, the supreme court remarked: "As appears to be the case here, there can be a number of people within a field with similar specialized knowledge capable of rendering an expert opinion on the question or questions asked. In such instance, the opinion of one particular expert is not irreplaceable." Alt, 224 Wis. 2d at 89. Adopting the logic set forth in Mason v. Robinson, 340 N.W.2d 236, 242 (Iowa 1983), the supreme court said: " '[U]nlike factual testimony, expert testimony is not unique and a litigant will not be usually deprived of critical evidence if he cannot have the expert of his choice.1 " Alt, 224 Wis. 2d at 89. Like Dr. Acosta in Alt, Dr. Koh's role as a treating physician does not make his testimony unique, nor does he possess knowledge in a rare field of medicine where only a few specialized doctors practice.
¶ 21. The majority fails to specifically state the "compelling circumstances" in this case. While the majority notes that the procedural history is an important factor in its analysis, it continues by. admitting: "[Ajlthough the long and complicated procedural history does not 'serve as an excuse for missing the due date,' that history does serve 'to illustrate that [the failure to comply with the scheduling order] may be understandable as human error, but [the failure] was certainly not intentional or egregious.'" The facts are clear that the Glenns' predicament was caused by their attorney's failure to meet a scheduling order. As pointed out by Judge White and the majority, the Glenns' "counsel simply did not have a justifiable excuse for missing the deadline."
¶ 22. The majority appears to have been swayed into forcing Dr. Koh to testify as an expert based on what the majority perceived to be the only alternative *375solution to finding him to be an involuntary expert witness - an outright dismissal of the case. As set forth by the majority, this alternative was caused, in no small part, by the endless morass of new dates and new judges encountered by the Glenns below. But this conclusion ignores the fact that the trial court could have easily permitted the attorneys more time to name experts and left Dr. Koh's right not to testify intact.
¶ 23. Rather than examining the circumstances leading up to the absence of an expert witness and determining whether those circumstances are compelling, the majority appears to apply an outcome determinative test, i.e., regardless of counsel's unjustifiable excuse for missing the deadline, because the result of the error (dismissal of the lawsuit) is compelling (the "particularly harsh sanction" highlighted by Judge White and the majority), the trial court was justified in ordering Dr. Koh's testimony against his wishes. This is not the test. While the outcome may be a factor, the main focus must be whether the circumstances leading to the absence of expert testimony is compelling - not whether the result of the absence is compelling, because the result may often be dismissal, a result for which the Glenns still have a remedy.
¶ 24. Although the case law fails to provide a clear definition of "compelling circumstances," in comparison, the facts here are more undeserving of a finding of compelling circumstances than those found in Alt. Here, the "compelling circumstances" consist of Glenn's attorney's complete disregard of the scheduling order's requirement to name expert witnesses by a date certain and the trial court's refusal to amend the order to permit more time for the naming of witnesses. Thus, Dr. Koh's privilege to refuse to testify has been snatched away by the negligence of the very attorney seeking the *376doctor's expertise. The effect of the majority's decision is that other attorneys, either unable or unwilling to timely find expert witnesses to back their allegations, and faced with scheduling order deadlines, will simply be able to dragoon treating doctors into the role of their expert witness by crying "compelling circumstances." By doing so, the majority's decision has turned Alt on its head.