Wrobleski v. De Lara
353 Md. 509, 1999 Md. LEXIS 165, 727 A.2d 930 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
It is generally permissible for a party to cross-examine an expert witness about the total amount or portion of their income derived from forensic activities to expose potential bias as a 'professional witness', subject to the trial court's discretion to prevent harassment or unnecessary invasion of privacy.
Facts:
- Linda Wrobleski experienced pain in her pelvic area and other symptoms, leading Dr. Nora de Lara to perform a laparoscopy on June 6, 1994.
- During the laparoscopy, Dr. de Lara found and removed adhesions in Ms. Wrobleski’s abdominal cavity, some of which had adhered to her small intestine.
- Damage was done to Ms. Wrobleski’s small intestine during the adhesion removal, resulting in a perforation that allowed contents to leak into her abdominal cavity.
- The perforation caused significant pain, an infection, and necessitated two corrective surgeries for Ms. Wrobleski.
- Medical experts for Ms. Wrobleski, including Dr. Lilling, asserted that Dr. de Lara was negligent, while Dr. de Lara's experts concluded there was no negligence.
- During pretrial deposition, Dr. Lilling refused to disclose the total amount of income he received from testifying as an expert witness, stating only that it was less than 20% of his total income.
- At trial, defense counsel asked Dr. Lilling if he was prepared to tell the jury how much he made in 1995 from testifying as an expert, and he again declined to answer.
Procedural Posture:
- Linda Wrobleski sued Nora de Lara for medical malpractice in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City.
- A jury in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City found no negligence on Dr. de Lara’s part, resulting in a judgment for Dr. de Lara.
- Ms. Wrobleski appealed the judgment to the Court of Special Appeals.
- The Court of Special Appeals affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court.
- The Court of Appeals of Maryland granted certiorari to consider Ms. Wrobleski's appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err in allowing defense counsel to question a medical expert witness about the total amount of money the witness earned in a given year from testifying as an expert?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilner, Judge
No, the trial court did not err in allowing defense counsel to question a medical expert witness about the total amount of money earned from testifying as an expert. The court affirmed that cross-examination regarding an expert's financial interest in testifying is a legitimate means to expose potential bias, particularly in cases involving 'professional witnesses.' Historically, courts have viewed expert testimony with skepticism due to the potential for bias, and modern litigation has seen a proliferation of experts who derive a significant portion of their income from testifying. Allowing inquiry into the amount of income from forensic activities or the percentage of total income derived from such services helps the jury assess the witness's credibility by revealing a potential economic interest in the outcome of litigation. The court noted that while wide latitude is given to cross-examiners to explore bias, trial courts must tightly control the inquiry to prevent harassment or unnecessary invasion of privacy.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the permissible scope of cross-examination of expert witnesses in Maryland, aligning with a majority of jurisdictions that allow inquiry into an expert's total income from forensic activities. It reinforces the importance of exposing potential bias, particularly concerning 'professional witnesses,' to ensure the jury can properly assess credibility. The ruling balances a party's right to effective cross-examination with the need to protect expert witnesses from undue harassment, thereby potentially influencing how attorneys approach both discovery and trial strategy when dealing with expert testimony. Future cases will likely use this standard to determine the admissibility and limits of such questioning, emphasizing the trial judge's role as a gatekeeper against overly intrusive inquiries.
