Opinion ID: 2363701
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Overarching Theory of Bias

Text: First, we will address Allen's overarching argument as to why all of the records it seeks from KaMMCO are discoverable because of the potential to show Dr. Macy's bias and KaMMCO's argument that none of the records are discoverable. As we have discussed, in initially stating how the subpoena requests were reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, Allen relied on Dr. Slater's and Dr. Macy's shared financial interest as members of the same member-owned insurance company, otherwise known as a mutual insurance company. Once discovery revealed this link lacked a factual basis, Allen shifted its focus to KaMMCO's aggressive claims practices. Then Allen again asserted a financial interest, albeit more attenuated, because both physicians must purchase insurance from Kansas insurance carriers whose premiums are likely to be impacted by jury verdicts. We will begin our analysis by examining whether this financial link, as a matter of law, is material to the issue of witness bias, in other words whether it is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence. See State v. Shadden, 290 Kan. 803, 817, 235 P.3d 436 (2010) (materiality of evidence presents question of law). In general, evidence of bias is always relevant, as is evidence that a witness bears a prejudice, hostility, or improper motive. State v. Ross, 280 Kan. 878, 886, 127 P.3d 249, cert. denied 548 U.S. 912, 126 S.Ct. 2942, 165 L.Ed.2d 965 (2006); see also Lindquist v. Ayerst Laboratories, Inc., 227 Kan. 308, 315, 607 P.2d 1339 (1980) (evidence of bias or prejudice of witness is relevant and may be shown on cross-examination, in rebuttal, or by other witnesses or evidence); State v. Scott, 39 Kan.App.2d 49, 56, 177 P.3d 972 (2008) (One of the methods or techniques for attacking the credibility of a witness is to show partiality, including bias, motive, and interest in the outcome.). Our recognition of these general principles leaves us with the question of whether it is evidence of bias that Dr. Macy, the defense expert, is insured by a company that is the servicing carrier for Dr. Slater's insurance plan. Clearly, Allen would have a stronger argument if, as initially believed, Dr. Slater and Dr. Macy were both insured by the same member-owned insurance company. Even then, we would be faced with two potentially conflicting principles. First is the general principle that Allen should be able to develop and discover evidence of Dr. Macy's bias. See K.S.A. 60-420 (evidence of credibility admissible). Second, however, are general principles aimed at preventing the mention of insurance if doing so raises the implication that an insurance company will be paying damages. These principles are applicable because, if Allen is allowed to impeach Dr. Macy with evidence he was a member of a member-owned insurance company, the evidence would have the simultaneous effect of announcing that Dr. Slater has liability insurance. As such, K.S.A. 60-454 comes into play. It provides: Evidence that a person was, at the time a harm was suffered by another, insured wholly or partially against loss arising from liability for that harm is inadmissible as tending to prove negligence or other wrongdoing. K.S.A. 60-454 deviates from the federal rule of evidence and the rule as adopted in many states, which begins with the sentence found in K.S.A. 60-454 but also addresses the potential for admitting evidence of insurance to establish bias or for other purposes the rule specifies. For example, the federal rule continues by stating: This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness. Fed.R.Evid. 411. Nevertheless, without discussion of the difference in Kansas' rule and the federal provision or the lack of the specific authorization for evidence of insurance to show bias, this court found no reversible error in disclosing the existence of liability insurance to show witness interest or bias in State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Hornback, 217 Kan. 17, 535 P.2d 441 (1975). In that case, a fire insurer's subrogation action against defendant tenants, a witness who testified for the tenants as to the cause of the fire was the liability insurance agent who sold the policy. The court recognized that under those circumstances the collateral mention of insurance was necessary to establish the possible bias on the part of the witness. Applying such a view (usually in the context of an explicit statutory or rule provision like Fed.R.Evid. 411), other jurisdictions have considered the question of whether evidence that an expert witness is a member of the same member-owned insurance company as a defendant may be admitted at trial. Before us, Allen does not cite to these cases as support for her argument and, more critically, does not cite any factually similar case where the defendant physician and the expert witness were not members of the same insurance company. Nevertheless, we find some guidance in the cases dealing with members of the same insurance company. In considering that situation, most jurisdictions apply what has become characterized as a connections test or a substantial connections test. The substantial connection analysis looks to whether a witness has `a sufficient degree of connection with the liability insurance carrier to justify allowing proof of this relationship as a means of attacking the credibility of the witness.' Bonser v. Shainholtz, 3 P.3d 422, 425 (Colo.2000) (quoting Otwell v. Bryant, 497 So.2d 111, 115 [Ala.1986]). The Alabama Supreme Court first mentioned a connections analysis in Otwell, 497 So.2d at 113. Otwell was a medical malpractice case in which the plaintiff attempted to introduce evidence that two defendant physicians and three of the defendants' physician expert witnesses were members of the same mutual assurance company. The district court refused to admit the evidence, and the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed, holding: What is missing in the present case is the sufficient degree of `connection.' The coincidental fact that the witness and the defendants are both insured by [the same mutual assurance company] is not an adequate degree of connection to counter-balance the undue prejudice that will result to the defendants through alerting the jury to the existence of liability insurance. Otwell, 497 So.2d at 114. The rationale was further explained in Mendoza v. Varon, 563 S.W.2d 646, 649 (Tex. Civ.App.1978), another medical malpractice case. The court stated: [T]he [expert] witness had no direct interest in the outcome of the litigation, as would an agent, owner or employee of the defendant's insurer. While it is true that a large judgment against any doctor will probably affect the insurance rates of other physicians, this interest is remote, and any proof of bias based upon that interest is outweighed by the prejudice caused by informing the jury of the defendant's insurance protection. Mendoza, 563 S.W.2d at 649. Other jurisdictions have reached the conclusion that evidence of both physicians being members of the same mutual insurance company is not admissible, without a showing of a substantial connection between the expert and the company. See, e.g., Barsema v. Susong, 156 Ariz. 309, 313, 751 P.2d 969 (1988) ([W]e acknowledge that in dealing with a captive insurer ... with a comparatively small premium pool, evidence of a common insurer between the witness and the defendant might be more relevant than in ordinary cases. Nonetheless, ... [i]n all but the exceptional case, a trial judge applying Rule 403 should hold that the danger of prejudice resulting from the interjection of insurance evidence substantially outweighs the probative value of evidence that the witness and a party have a common insurer. In all but exceptional cases, therefore, the type of evidence that concerns defendant would not be admitted.); Hawes v. Chua, 769 A.2d 797, 810-11 (D.C.2001) (commonality of insurance company insufficient in absence of proffer of substantial connection such as showing that expert is agent of insurer); Chambers v. Gwinnett Community, Inc., 253 Ga.App. 25, 28, 557 S.E.2d 412 (2001) ([A] party must demonstrate a more substantial connection than simply a common mutual insurance carrier to overcome the potentially prejudicial effect of introducing evidence of a defendant's insurance.); Wells v. Tucker, 997 So.2d 908, 917 (Miss.2008) (trial court did not abuse discretion in excluding evidence of common insurance carrier, noting strong policy to not interject insurance into trial); Reimer v. Surgical Servs. of the Great Plains, 258 Neb. 671, 676, 605 N.W.2d 777 (2000) (plaintiffs presented no evidence of bias other than the mere fact that [the defendant] and his expert were policyholders of insurance issued by the same carrier. Absent other facts to indicate bias, the facts of the instant case indicate only a remote possibility of bias); Warren v. Jackson, 125 N.C.App. 96, 101, 479 S.E.2d 278 (1997) (mere policyholder status represents too attenuated a connection with an insurance company, mutual or otherwise, for the probative value of such evidence to outweigh the potential prejudice to jury's deliberations); Mills v. Grotheer, 957 P.2d 540, 543 (Okla. 1998) (unless it is shown that witness has substantial connection with business of the common insurer, there is no basis for discrediting testimony based on bias derived from interest in common insurer's business); Patton v. Rose, 892 S.W.2d 410, 415 (Tenn. App.1994) (plaintiff unsuccessfully sought to cross-examine one of defendant physician's expert witnesses regarding the fact that the expert was insured by same insurance company). Only the Ohio Supreme Court has taken a different view, adopting a per se rule that commonality of coverage is admissible to prove bias in a medical malpractice case. See Ede v. Atrium South OB-GYN, Inc., 71 Ohio St.3d 124, 128, 642 N.E.2d 365 (1994). These cases uniformly undercut Allen's blanket argument that all of the requested information is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence of financial bias. This is especially true since the cases applying the substantial interest test are at least one step removed from the situation presented in this case because those cases involve members of the same insurance company whereas Dr. Slater and Dr. Macy are insured by different companies. Hence, even Ohio's per se commonality of coverage standard would not apply. Under any of these cases, without a membership connection between KaMMCO and Dr. Slater, Dr. Macy's membership in KaMMCO, by itself, would not be admissible evidence or serve as a door to open access to the admission of a wide range of KaMMCO documents. The lack of membership connection makes this case analogous to a line of Kansas cases in which attorneys sought to determine juror bias by asking jurors during voir dire whether they were members of or stockholders in insurance companies. Uniformly, this court condemned this practice. For example, in Powell v. Kansas Yellow Cab Co., 156 Kan. 150, Syl. ¶ 4, 131 P.2d 686 (1942), this court held it is reversible error in a personal injury action in which an insurance company is not a party to ask jurors on their voir dire if they are stockholders or directors in an insurance company. In addition, the court held: [I]t is gross misconduct for counsel for plaintiff, in examining jurors on their voir dire, to ask any question which indicates defendant will not have to pay a judgment rendered for plaintiff but that some insurance company is bound to pay it. Powell, 156 Kan. 150, Syl. ¶ 3, 131 P.2d 686. Obviously, these cases are not directly on point. They do reflect, however, Kansas' long-standing position that insurance should not be interjected in a trial. Further, they reject arguments that the financial connection of buying insurance in the same market or even having a joint ownership interest in an insurance company is a bias that would disqualify a potential juror or is of the nature that warrants interjection of insurance into a liability trial. While these cases are helpful to our analysis, this case presents a different question. Here the question is whether to allow discovery rather than whether to admit evidence of insurance or allow discussion of insurance during a trial. As we have repeatedly noted, the relevancy test for discovery is not whether evidence will be admissible at trial, but whether it is reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. Even so, courts have extended the substantial connections test to the discovery setting and have limited discovery, at least when a nonparty is involved. See, e.g., Ex parte Morris, 530 So.2d 785, 789 (Ala.1988) (discovery sought was malpractice witnesses' income tax returns; court relied on Otwell's substantial connection test). The rationale of these cases that limit discovery is not unlike that applied by this court in Berst and in Jones v. Bordman, 243 Kan. 444, 759 P.2d 953 (1988). As previously discussed, in Berst, the court directed a district court to consider its authority under K.S.A. 60-226(c) to enter orders limiting discovery after weighing various factors. Similar direction was given in Jones. Jones was an interlocutory appeal arising from discovery orders related to requests for information intended to prove bias and prejudice on the part of a defense expert witness, Dr. Joseph Lichtor. The plaintiffs sought various documents from Dr. Lichtor, including all medical reports made by the doctor for the past 6 years, the doctor's income tax returns, and a list of all cases in which the doctor served as an expert witness for the defendant's attorneys. The district court denied a motion to quash the subpoena. On appeal, one of the arguments raised by the plaintiffs pertained to the scope of discovery. The plaintiffs argued that the scope of discovery as defined in K.S.A. 60-226(b) was broad enough to permit the inspection of Dr. Lichtor's records for possible evidence showing bias and prejudice. Jones, 243 Kan. at 454, 759 P.2d 953. Despite the broad test for permitting discovery, the Jones court found the medical records sought by the plaintiffs were inadmissible because the records pertained to persons who were not parties to the action and as such are not relevant. Jones, 243 Kan. at 455, 759 P.2d 953. The Jones court explained: It does not follow that the wholesale discovery of these medical records is permissible because evidence may be discovered which might show bias and prejudice of the witness. ... The scope of discovery under K.S.A. [2009] Supp. 60-226(b) contemplates the full disclosure of the expert witness' opinion and the facts and basis for that opinion. It does not contemplate the discovery of the medical records of persons not a party to the lawsuit for the sole purpose of obtaining evidence which may show a bias or prejudice. Jones, 243 Kan. at 455 [759 P.2d 953]. This limitation on discovery suggests it can be appropriate to limit discovery based on what arguably is a broad theory of bias and prejudice. Such a limitation seems particularly appropriate in a case such as this where there seems to be a complete lack of authority for the ultimate admission of the evidence Allen seeks to discover or for authority suggesting the information is material to the issue of bias. The cases from other jurisdictions persuade us that discovery of all the KaMMCO records is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence of bias when the materiality of that evidence is premised on the fact that Dr. Slater and his expert are within the same insurance market or that the expert is a member of the insurance company that is the servicing carrier for Dr. Slater's insurance plan. Consequently, we reject Allen's invitation for us to make a blanket finding that all of the requested documents are discoverable on the basis that KaMMCO's records are reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence showing Dr. Macy's bias simply because he and Dr. Slater are Kansas physicians.