concluding that no prejudice arose from trial court’s refusal to allow plaintiff to inquire about physician’s lack of board certification to rebut his credibility as a witness where the record reflected that several other physicians opined that defendant physician met the standard of care
How later courts described this case
- concluding that no prejudice arose from trial court’s refusal to allow plaintiff to inquire about physician’s lack of board certification to rebut his credibility as a witness where the record reflected that several other physicians opined that defendant physician met the standard of care
- holding that the party seeking reversal on the basis of an erroneous evidentiary ruling must indicate to the reviewing court what prejudice was caused by the erroneous ruling
- “Evidence of a physician’s lack of board certification may be used to impeach the physician’s credibility as an expert witness.”
- upholding decision to exclude evidence of failed attempts at board certification on Rule 403 considerations
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Ray Thornton, Justice, dissenting. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ruling that evidence that Dr. Buchman had failed the board exams on numerous occasions and was no longer eligible to take the exam was inadmissible to show negligence. I also agree that once the doctor had made his credentials an issue by listing some of them in order to become qualified as an expert, it was error to refuse to allow the question of board certification to be asked on cross-examination as to his credentials as an expert. Evidence that an expert is or is not board certified in a particular specialty bears on the expert’s professional expertise, as does the person’s education, training, licensing, and experience, and such evidence should be admissible. See Kinser v. Elkadi, 674 S.W.2d 226 (Mo.App. S.D. 1984). See also Ward v. Epting, 290 S.C. 547 , 351 S.E.2d 867 (App. 1986)(citing 61 Am. Jur. 2d Physicians, Surgeons, & Other Healers § 346 (1981)).
However, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that this error in denying appellant the opportunity to challenge Dr. Buchman’s credentials as an expert witness was not prejudicial to appellant’s case, specifically because Dr. Buchman’s testimony as an expert formed the foundation for the defense that appellant’s injuries were caused by an abnormal anatomy in the area of her gallbladder.
Dissent.