Oberlin v. Akron General Medical Center

Summary

The Ohio Supreme Court held that evidence showing an expert witness was defending a pending medical malpractice action involving a similar alleged injury was admissible to demonstrate bias, prejudice, or motive to misrepresent. The court concluded that the trial court improperly excluded cross-examination concerning the expert’s malpractice case under Ohio Evidence Rules 403(A), 611(B), and 616(A), reversed the appellate judgment, and ordered a new trial.

Holdings

1. Evidence that an expert witness is a defendant in a pending malpractice action alleging a medical error similar to the one at issue is probative and admissible to prove the expert's bias, prejudice, or motive to misrepresent.
2. The evidence of Vrabec's pending malpractice action was not unfairly prejudicial within the meaning of Evid.R. 403(A), and the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the cross-examination.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence that a testifying medical expert is defending a pending malpractice action involving a similar medical error is relevant and admissible to show bias, prejudice, or motive to misrepresent.
2. Whether the probative value of that bias evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Ohio Evid.R. 403(A).

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded