## Facts

- Ann Calderon was injured in an automobile collision involving Judith Sharkey.
- Calderon sued Sharkey for negligence; Sharkey admitted negligence, leaving causation and damages as the main trial disputes.
- At trial, Sharkey called Dr. Edward Hanley, a physician, as a medical witness regarding Calderon’s injuries.
- On cross-examination, Calderon attempted to question Dr. Hanley about possible bias and financial interest based on prior work as a witness in cases handled by Sharkey’s attorney.
- Sharkey objected to this line of questioning.
- The trial court allowed questioning about (1) Dr. Hanley’s fee for testifying and (2) how often he testified as a medical witness generally.
- The trial court barred additional questions seeking (1) details of any continuing business relationship between Dr. Hanley and Sharkey’s attorney and (2) the number of times Dr. Hanley had testified for Sharkey within the last year.
- The jury returned a verdict for Calderon in the amount of $3,100.
- The court of appeals reversed, finding error in the limitation placed on cross-examination.
- Sharkey sought review in the Supreme Court of Ohio.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by limiting cross-examination of a medical witness about bias and pecuniary interest, including questions about the witness’s relationship with defense counsel and prior testimony for the defendant?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the scope of cross-examination of a medical witness on bias and pecuniary interest, and the admissibility of evidence offered to show such bias and pecuniary interest, are matters committed to the trial court’s sound discretion.
- The court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing questions about fees and general frequency of testimony while excluding more detailed questions about an ongoing relationship with defense counsel and specific counts of testimony for Sharkey in the prior year.
- The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed, leaving the trial court’s judgment in place.

## Legal Principles

- The trial judge has broad control over the scope of cross-examination and related evidentiary rulings; appellate review is for abuse of discretion.
- A party may probe a witness’s bias and financial interest, but the trial court may limit questioning that is repetitive, marginally probative, or likely to consume unnecessary time.
- Evidence about bias is not unlimited; once the jury has an adequate basis to evaluate possible partiality (for example, by hearing about fees and general frequency of testimony), additional detail may be restricted.
- Medical witnesses are not subject to a special, expanded standard of cross-examination beyond the ordinary rules governing witness bias and impeachment.

## Conclusion

Calderon v. Sharkey holds that questioning a medical witness about bias and financial interest is allowed, but the trial court retains discretion to set reasonable limits; because the jury heard evidence about Dr. Hanley’s compensation and general history of testifying, the court found no abuse of discretion in excluding more detailed questions about his relationship with defense counsel and the number of times he testified for the defendant in the prior year.


Calderon v. Sharkey, 436 N.E.2d 1008 (1982)