The Indiana Supreme Court

This case presents an issue of first impression for this Court: may a party use evidence of an expert witness’s professional disciplinary history to challenge the expert’s credibility? Here, an expert–doctor testified that the plaintiff suffered permanent injury from an auto accident. And the defendant was not permitted to introduce evidence that the expert’s medical license had previously been on probation or evidence of the reasons underlying the expert’s past professional discipline.

Today, we hold that both types of evidence—an expert witness’s professional-licensure status and the reasons for professional discipline— may be admissible to challenge the expert’s credibility. Under the facts of this case, the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence that the expert–doctor’s medical license had been on probation—though the error was harmless. And the trial court properly excluded evidence of the reasons for the doctor’s professional discipline, as that evidence was inadmissible under certain evidentiary rules. We thus affirm the jury’s verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.

On admissibility

the trial court excluded two types of evidence relating to Dr. Paschall’s professional disciplinary history—evidence that his license had been on probation previously and evidence of the reasons for his past professional discipline. As explained below, the court should have admitted the former, but it properly excluded the latter.