Opinion ID: 2242785
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Cross-Examination of Dr. McPartlin

Text: Plaintiff argues that the trial court improperly restricted her cross-examination of Dr. McPartlin. Dr. McPartlin testified that, during his treatment of McDonnell in 1986, he relied on the Bone sepsis criteria. Plaintiff attempted to impeach Dr. McPartlin with an article purportedly establishing that the Bone sepsis criteria were first published in 1992. Defendants objected to the use of the article because it had not been disclosed in discovery. The trial court sustained the objection and struck any testimony regarding the date of the Bone article. The scope of cross-examination rests within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion resulting in manifest prejudice to the party claiming error. Leonardi, 168 Ill.2d at 102, 212 Ill.Dec. 968, 658 N.E.2d 450; People v. Kitchen, 159 Ill.2d 1, 37, 201 Ill.Dec. 1, 636 N.E.2d 433 (1994). One purpose of cross-examination is to test the credibility of the witness. Kitchen, 159 Ill.2d at 37, 201 Ill.Dec. 1, 636 N.E.2d 433. Assuming, arguendo, that the trial court erred in preventing plaintiff from testing Dr. McPartlin's credibility as to his reliance on the Bone criteria in 1986, we conclude that plaintiff's planned impeachment of Dr. McPartlin was not significant enough to affect the outcome of the trial. Dr. McPartlin testified over a period of several days, explaining in great detail the significance of each symptom, laboratory value, and test result reflected in the records from McDonnell's hospitalization, as well as the medical bases underlying his treatment decisions. The doctor's purported reliance on the Bone sepsis criteria constitutes one very small part of his testimony. Further, we note that the limited testimony that was taken on this subject suggests that the criteria may have existed in some fashion prior to their purported publication under Bone's name in 1992. We also observe that the significance of whether Dr. McPartlin, in fact, could have relied upon the Bone criteria in 1986 is diminished by the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Dr. Gump, who acknowledged that McDonnell did not satisfy the criteria until November 12. Thus, to the extent the trial court abused its discretion by restricting plaintiff's cross-examination of Dr. McPartlin, no manifest prejudice resulted to plaintiff.