Professional Negligence Law Reporter

A Missouri appellate court held that a trial court had erred in precluding evidence of a defendant physician’s disciplinary record during a medical negligence trial.

Jimmie Sue Marchbank underwent vaginal prolapse repair surgery performed by urologist Amit Chakrabarty. Marchbank developed a fistula and required a permanent colostomy after the procedure. She and her husband sued Chakrabarty, alleging he negligently performed the surgery. Chakrabarty moved to exclude evidence of a prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Alabama Medical Licensure Commission and the state board of medical examiners. The jury returned a defense verdict.

On appeal, the plaintiffs asserted that the court’s preclusion of the disciplinary evidence impacted their ability to impeach Chakrabarty’s credibility.

Reversing and remanding, the court noted that at trial, Chakrabarty was identified as a non-retained expert permitted to testify about the standard of care, liability, damages, and causation. The court ruled that the trial court had abused its discretion in excluding the impeachment evidence related to the physician’s 2003 disciplinary action, finding that the plaintiffs should have been allowed to cross-examine Chakrabarty regarding his qualifications and skill as an expert witness. The exclusion of this evidence was prejudicial to the plaintiffs, the court said, noting that in medical negligence suits, the credibility of witnesses is most important. The jury was unable to consider Chakrabarty’s medical license probation as a result of the trial court’s ruling and could not use this information to determine his qualifications, credibility, or skill, the court noted.

Consequently, the court held the trial court had erred as a matter of law.

Citation: Marchbank v. Chakrabarty, 2024 WL 1863623 (Mo. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2024).

Plaintiff counsel: James Reinert and William Magrath, both of St. Louis.