Opinion ID: 794464
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Impeachment, Rebuttal, and Rehabilitative Evidence

Text: 64 Appellant contends that the District Court should have permitted the Jones Report and relevant deposition testimony to be introduced in response to the case appellees presented at trial. Specifically, appellant contends that the probative value of the Jones Report was obvious as it related to her need to impeach and rebut the testimony offered by Dr. Salem and his colleague, Dr. Chamberlain, as well as to rehabilitate Dr. Balliro. We agree. 65 When putting on their case at trial, appellees made every effort to establish that Dr. Salem routinely made his anastomoses 1 to 1.5 centimeters in diameter. Dr. Salem stated this himself, and Dr. Chamberlain, the former chief resident at George Washington Medical Center, also testified as such. Specifically, Dr. Chamberlain offered that in his 10 to 15 times participating in Roux-en-Y surgeries with Dr. Salem, it was Dr. Salem's common practice to make the anastomosis between 1 and 1-1/2 centimeters in size. Trial Tr. (1/21/05) at 310. Dr. Chamberlain asserted that this would be the size we try to do every time. Id. at 311. 66 The probative value of the Jones Report to rebut the testimony of Dr. Salem and Dr. Chamberlain is undeniable. The Jones Report on its face directly contradicts Dr. Salem's claim that he always made his anastomoses 1 to 1.5 centimeters. In addition, the need for and relevance of the Jones Report was heightened when appellees attempted to corroborate Dr. Salem's claim of consistency through the testimony of Dr. Chamberlain. 67 Appellees argue that since Dr. Salem made the same interior/exterior measurement distinction in his deposition that he did at trial, the Jones Report was consistent and therefore would not impeach his testimony. This claim has no merit. It is an open question whether the internal/external distinction is valid. The language describing Helen Jones' anastomosis cuts against Dr. Salem's attempt to explain away the three-centimeter anastomosis as being measured externally. 68 Appellant presents an even stronger case for admission of the Jones Report to rehabilitate her expert witness, Dr. Balliro. Appellant alleges that, both during cross-examination and in their closing argument, appellees improperly used the unavailability of the Jones Report to discredit Dr. Balliro. 69 On cross-examination, the specter of the Jones Report arose in the following exchange between defense counsel and Dr. Balliro: 70 Q: Doctor, I ask this for the record, but you were not present during the surgeries that were performed on Mrs. Henderson, correct? 71 A: Correct. 72 Q: But in the report that you authored back in January of 2003, what you indicated was that the anastomosis was certainly no less than 3 centimeters in diameter, did you not? 73 A: Yes, but I had evidence that you are aware of as to why that was, in fact, the case. 74 Q: Now, the specific dimension of the size or the width of the anastomosis is not described in the [Henderson] operative note, is it, sir? 75 A: Yes, sir, that is not the evidence to which I am referring. 76 Q: Excuse me, Doctor, can you follow my question? 77 Trial Tr. (1/21/05) at 224-25. From the above exchange, it is clear, as appellant argues, that appellees used the court's previous exclusion of the Jones Report — on which Dr. Balliro relied in determining that the anastomosis was three centimeters — to destroy his credibility. 78 Appellees followed this same strategy, taking it one step further, during their summation to the jury. Appellees' counsel argued to the jury, 79 as I have pointed out, not only do we know what the anastomosis size was now, we know that what the Plaintiff basically has done is tried to create the facts to fit the theory of the case. And when [Plaintiff's counsel] hasn't been able to change the facts well enough to fit the theory, he disregards the facts and he makes up 3 centimeters. I submit to you that's not fair.... [I]t is not fair to make them up. 80 Trial Tr. (1/26/05) at 744. Had the Jones Report been in evidence, appellees could not have sandbagged appellant in this manner. They knew that the Jones Report was excluded, however, and opportunistically used that ruling not only to shield themselves from potentially damaging evidence, but also to use it as a sword to slice through the foundation of much of appellant's case. 81 Appellees respond that the evidence has no foundation for admission for rehabilitative purposes because appellant failed to meet the threshold for the curative admissibility doctrine. Under this doctrine, the introduction of inadmissible or irrelevant evidence by one party justifies or `opens the door to' admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence. United States v. Brown, 921 F.2d 1304, 1307 (D.C.Cir.1990). In this case, appellees assert that their questioning of Dr. Balliro was strictly limited to the existence, or lack thereof, of a reference to a three-centimeter anastomosis in the Henderson post-surgery report. Thus, they claim that they did not open the door to the admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence, because they never mentioned the Jones Report. This argument is entirely unconvincing. 82 There is little question that this is the kind of situation that the curative admissibility doctrine sought to cure. As one of our sister circuits has noted, not only is the trial court granted discretion to permit a party to introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence on an issue when the opposing party has introduced inadmissible evidence on the same issue, but it may also do so when it is needed to rebut a false impression that may have resulted from the opposing party's evidence. United States v. Rosa, 11 F.3d 315, 335 (2d Cir.1993). In this instance, appellees' disingenuous use of the District Court's inadmissibility ruling put Dr. Balliro, and, in turn, appellant, in an untenable position. Appellees could have supported their case just as forcefully by limiting their cross-examination to the endoscopy film and to whether Henderson's post-surgery report indicated a three-centimeter anastomosis. The fact that they went well beyond this, gratuitously undercutting Dr. Balliro, should have led the District Court — buttressed as well by appellant's need of the Jones Report for impeachment and rebuttal — to allow the admission of the report.