Elizabeth Mitchell, et al. v. Milton Kardesch, M.D.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that the trial court erred by prohibiting plaintiffs in a medical malpractice wrongful-death action from cross-examining the defendant physician about a false sworn interrogatory answer concerning prior medical-license suspensions. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant to the physician's character for truthfulness and that extrinsic evidence, including the interrogatory answer and deposition, could be admissible when highly probative of credibility on material issues. The court reversed the judgment for the physician and remanded for a new trial.

Holdings

1. A witness testifying on the stand may be cross-examined about specific instances of the witness's own conduct that are relevant to the witness's character for truth and veracity, even if the subject of the inquiry is not independently material to the substantive issues in the case, subject to the trial court's discretion to limit or exclude the evidence to prevent undue prejudice.
2. Extrinsic evidence concerning a witness's character for truth and veracity may be admitted when its probative value and relevance to credibility substantially outweigh its prejudicial effect and the risk of distracting the jury, even if the evidence concerns a matter collateral to the substantive issues.
3. The trial court abused its discretion by entirely prohibiting plaintiffs from asking Dr. Kardesch about his false answer concerning suspension of his medical licenses and from using the answer and deposition as impeachment evidence.
4. The evidentiary error was prejudicial, and the plaintiffs presented sufficient expert evidence to submit breach of the standard of care and causation to the jury.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by prohibiting cross-examination of Dr. Kardesch about his false sworn interrogatory answer and deposition admissions concerning the suspension of his medical licenses.
2. Whether extrinsic evidence, including the interrogatory answer and deposition, was admissible to impeach Dr. Kardesch's character for truth and veracity when he denied or disputed the prior statements.
3. Whether the evidentiary error was prejudicial and whether the plaintiffs' expert evidence was sufficient to create a jury question on breach of the medical standard of care and causation.
4. Whether State v. Wolfe and cases following it should continue to be followed to the extent they prohibit cross-examination about specific acts relevant to a witness's character for truth and veracity.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded