Court Opinion

ID: 9627027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:31:29.084785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:53.229509
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by
MUSMANNO, J.
¶ 1 I join the dissent filed by my esteemed colleague, President Judge Del Sole. I also write separately to state my dissent to the Majority’s resolution of Appellant’s claim related to the restriction on the cross-examination of Dr. Osterholm.
¶2 At trial, Appellant sought to introduce evidence of partiality and bias by Appellees’ expert witness, Dr. Osterholm. However, the trial court sustained Appel-lees’ objection to a question regarding the number of cases in which Dr. Osterholm had been represented by Appellees’ law firm, Post and Schell. On appeal, Appellant challenged this ruling.
*597¶ 3 The Majority concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of Dr. Oster-holm. In this regal’d, the Majority states that Appellant was “merely limited in questioning. [Dr. Osterholm] in a way that implied malpractice representation[.]” Slip Opinion at 23. However, the trial court’s ruling precluded any evidence as to the extensive nature of Dr. Osterholm’s involvement with Appellees’ law firm.
¶ 4 At trial, Appellant sought to cross-examine Dr. Osterholm regarding the total number of matters in which the law firm of Post & Schell represented Dr. Osterholm. Upon Appellees’ objection, the parties discussed the admissibility of this evidence at sidebar, and the following discourse transpired:
[Appellees’ counsel]: I said I object to that question. I think that’s entirely inappropriate.
THE COURT: What is the relevancy?
[Appellant’s counsel]: It shows there is a closeness of this doctor to the law firm of Post and Schell. I have proof with me in court, that they have represented him in 51 matters.
THE COURT: There is a closeness. How is that relevant, I’m not following you?
[Appellant’s counsel]: It shows as to his impartiality and motivation.
[Appellees’ counsel]: Your Honor, the purpose of what he is trying to do is show that this guy has been sued 51 times.
[Appellant’s counsel]: I didn’t say he was sued, I said they represented you in more than 50 matters.
N.T., 3/9/00, at 151-52. The trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection. Id. at 152.
¶ 5 Following this discussion, Appellant’s counsel asked whether Dr. Osterholm had been involved with Post & Schell “over the years, in many matters” to which Dr. Os-terholm replied “a few.” Id. at 152-53. When Appellant’s counsel attempted to probe Dr. Osterholm’s response of “a few,” the trial court sustained Appellees’ objection. Id. at 153.
¶ 6 Thus, the trial court did not merely limit questioning that would imply previous malpractice suits against Dr. Oster-holm, but it precluded any evidence regarding potential bias resulting from Dr. Osterholm’s extensive involvement with Post & Schell, and precluded Appellant’s impeachment of Dr. Osterholm’s statement that they had been involved in “a few” matters.
¶ 7 “A trial judge has considerable latitude in determining the scope of cross-examination and his determination will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion unless a party suffers an obvious disadvantage.” Steinhouse v. Herman Miller, Inc., 443 Pa.Super. 395, 661 A.2d 1379, 1384 (1995). However, a party is entitled to cross-examine an expert witness to explore the credibility of the witness and to inquire into any potential bias, interest or relationship, which could [a]f-fect the testimony of the witness. Spino v. John S. Tilley Ladder Co., 448 Pa.Super. 327, 671 A.2d 726, 738 (1996).
¶ 8 It is permissible to impeach an expert witness by demonstrating that he or she has partiality to a party for whom he or she is testifying. Brady by Brady v. Ballay, Thornton, Maloney Med. Assocs., 704 A.2d 1076, 1088 (Pa.Super.1997). Moreover, the professional relationship between experts and defense attorneys, beyond the confines of a present case, may be the proper subject of cross-examination. Id.
¶ 9 The present case turned upon the credibility of the expert witnesses. These *598experts testified regarding whether the Appellees were liable for failing to diagnose and treat Mr. Yacoub’s brain abscess, thereby causing his death. I believe that evidence of the extensive nature of the relationship between Dr. Osterholm and Post & Schell was admissible as evidence of partiality and bias, and that its preclusion constituted error. Moreover, because this case involved a “battle of the experts,” I cannot conclude that this error was harmless. I therefore dissent from the Majority’s holding on this issue, as well as those cited in President Judge Del Sole’s Dissenting Opinion.