Levetta Tunstall v. Dawn Manning

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that evidence of an expert witness’s professional licensure status and the reasons for professional discipline may be admissible to impeach the expert’s credibility, subject to applicable evidentiary rules. The court found that excluding evidence of the medical expert’s prior license probation was an abuse of discretion, but deemed the error harmless and affirmed the $1.3 million jury verdict for the plaintiff.

Holdings

1. Evidence of an expert witness's professional licensure status, including a prior limitation or probation of the license, may be admissible to impeach the expert's credibility when relevant and when its probative value is not substantially outweighed by the dangers identified in Indiana Evidence Rule 403.
2. The reasons underlying an expert's professional discipline may be relevant to credibility, but their admissibility remains subject to statutory restrictions and specific evidentiary rules. Here, the reasons for Paschall's discipline were properly excluded under Indiana Evidence Rules 608(b) and 609.
3. The trial court's erroneous exclusion of evidence that Paschall's medical license had previously been on probation was harmless and did not require reversal.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence that a testifying expert's professional license had previously been placed on probation is admissible to impeach the expert's credibility.
2. Whether evidence of the reasons underlying an expert's prior professional discipline is admissible to impeach the expert under Indiana Evidence Rules 608 and 609.
3. Whether the exclusion of evidence concerning the expert's prior license probation constituted prejudicial, reversible error.

Disposition

affirmed