Opinion ID: 1097684
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Majority's Discrediting Of Dr. McParland Is Rank Advocacy

Text: Of all of the errors in the majority opinion, the most egregious is that found at pages 274-276. It is here that the majority seeks to discredit Dr. McParland as an expert witness on behalf of Bankers Life. Various tactics are used. That Dr. McParland is a salaried employee of Bankers Life who derives approximately twenty percent of his income from work for Bankers Life is somehow seen as pernicious. [10] The majority goes on to cite the opinion of the other two doctors in the case as well as several medical texts to show that Dr. McParland was wrong. What becomes quickly apparent is that the majority opinion is a combination of a cross-examination of Dr. McParland and jury argument to the effect that the good doctor's opinion should not be credited. That such advocacy is inappropriate requires neither explanation nor citation of authority. I have read pages 274-276 repeatedly searching for a suggestion, first, that Dr. McParland should never have been allowed to testify or, second, that after he testified his testimony should have been excluded or, ultimately, that Dr. McParland's testimony was so incredible that notwithstanding same Crenshaw was entitled to a peremptory instruction in his favor on the underlying contract claim. None of these suggestions are made. Absent such, the majority opinion discredits itself. The majority's opinion treats as somehow significant that McParland was a paid part-time employee of Bankers Life, deriving approximately twenty percent of his income from services rendered to Bankers Life. This was and is a legitimate topic for cross-examination, for it may be said to go to the witness' credibility. How the point is relevant on this appeal, however, escapes me. Suppose Dr. McParland had been situated the same but only ten percent of his income came from Bankers Life? Only five percent of his income? Only one percent of his income? Would we still find such evil in this arrangement? Suppose on the other hand that Dr. McParland were not a salaried employee but rather functioned according to the classical arrangement labeled independent contractor? The majority seems to imply that this would make a difference. But suppose that Dr. McParland's work as an independent contractor in fact resulted in twenty percent or more of his income being derived from services rendered to Bankers Life. It is with our judicial knowledge that many physicians perform medical services for various business, commercial and industrial concerns on an independent contract basis. These physicians frequently are called to testify in a variety of types of proceedings. I have never heard of anyone suggesting that this Court should castigate the credibility of such a witness because of his relationship to the defendant company. And I might add that it is within our knowledge that there are a number of physicians who testify regularly on behalf of injured persons who are plaintiffs in civil actions or claimants in workers' compensation proceedings. This too is and has always been recognized as a legitimate subject for cross-examination. Still I have never heard of a court castigating the credibility of any such plaintiff's physician. What the majority is doing in pages 274-276 is unprecedented in our jurisprudence. The undisguised advocacy there found and the absence of any citation to law or logic supporting such an approach to a party's expert witness should be sufficient to establish the error of the majority's approach.