# Jackson v. Buchman

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · July 22, 1999 · 338 Ark. 467

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636215

## Case

- **Full name:** Diana JACKSON v. Dr. J.K. BUCHMAN and J.K. Buchman, M.D., P.A.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** July 22, 1999
- **Citations:** 338 Ark. 467; 996 S.W.2d 30; 1999 Ark. LEXIS 405
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Thornton
- **Judges:** Dub, Arnold, Thornton
- **Cited by:** 27 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636215

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 stan…
- 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

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9636215. Public record. Not legal advice.