Court Opinion

ID: 9544036
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:51:31.04282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:50.322606
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COUSINS, specially concurring: I agree with the holding of my learned colleague in this opinion on all evidentiary issues except for the trial court’s ruling on plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar cross-examination of plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Camow, about varying responses given by him in previous cases. It is my opinion that the trial court erred by refusing to grant plaintiff’s motion in limine to bar cross-examination of Dr. Camow about varying responses he had given in previous cases regarding the number of times he had failed the internal medical exam. In my opinion, this cross-examination related to a collateral matter, was clearly irrelevant and did not pertain either directly or indirectly to the credibility of the testimony of Dr. Camow in this case. The opinion in this case recognizes that in Elam v. Alcolac, Inc. (Mo. App. 1988), 765 S.W.2d 42, 202, the Missouri Appellate Court reviewed a trial court ruling which barred cross-examination of Dr. Car-now about responses he had given in several prior litigations regarding whether he failed the internal medicine boards once or twice rather than the actual five times. In the Elam case, the trial court barred the cross-examination and the Missouri Appellate Court affirmed the ruling of the trial court. I agree that “just because the Missouri reviewing court held that it was not an abuse of discretion for the lower court to have disallowed such cross-examination does not mean that we must find the trial court in this case abused its discretion by allowing it.” (252 Ill. App. 3d at 901.) However, it is my view that the Elam case is correct on this issue and, therefore, our decision in this case on the identical issue should be identical. Although I disagree on this particular issue, the evidence in support of the verdict which was rendered in the case we now review is so overwhelming that the trial court’s error in allowing the improper cross-examination was harmless. Consequently, I specially concur in the opinion to affirm. PRESIDING JUSTICE GORDON concurs in this special concurrence.