## Facts

- Roger Charter, a highway flagman, was struck by a truck and suffered extensive leg injuries.
- Charter was hospitalized and treated by a general practitioner and Dr. William J. Chleborad, a surgeon; surgery was performed on both legs.
- Charter developed severe postoperative complications and was transferred to another hospital, where both legs were amputated above the knee.
- Charter sued Chleborad for medical malpractice, alleging negligent treatment caused the complications and amputations.
- Charter’s primary expert, orthopedic surgeon Dr. Joseph Lichtor, testified to the applicable standard of care, opined Chleborad deviated from it, and attributed the complications and amputations to that negligence.
- In rebuttal, Chleborad called Kansas City attorney John J. Alder to testify that Lichtor’s reputation for truth and veracity was bad.
- On cross-examination, Alder admitted doing defense work in medical malpractice cases and that some clients were insurance companies.
- The trial court barred further questioning seeking the specific insurance companies for which Alder worked, despite plaintiff’s claim this would show Alder worked for the same liability insurer providing Chleborad’s defense.
- The jury returned a defense verdict, and the district court denied Charter’s motion for a new trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by limiting cross-examination to prevent inquiry into whether a defense rebuttal witness was employed by the same liability insurer defending the defendant, when offered to show bias under Fed. R. Evid. 411.
2. Whether a jury instruction on causation was erroneous and required reversal.

## Decision

- The Eighth Circuit reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- The trial court erred by preventing cross-examination aimed at showing Alder’s potential bias arising from work for the same liability insurer involved in the defense.
- The exclusion was not harmless because Alder’s credibility impeachment of Lichtor concerned testimony central to Charter’s malpractice case.
- The challenged causation instruction did not independently require reversal when the charge was considered as a whole, though the court noted the issue would arise again on retrial.

## Legal Principles

- Fed. R. Evid. 411 bars liability-insurance evidence to prove negligence or wrongful conduct, but permits such evidence when offered for another purpose, including showing a witness’s bias or prejudice.
- A party is entitled to probe facts that may influence a witness’s testimony; restrictions on bias cross-examination warrant careful review when credibility is central.
- Even when evidence is relevant to bias, a trial court may limit it under Rule 403, but it is error to exclude highly probative bias inquiry solely because it implicates insurance.
- A formal offer of proof is not required when the record clearly shows the substance and purpose of the excluded evidence.
- An erroneous limitation on bias cross-examination warrants reversal when there is a reasonable possibility the error affected the verdict (harmless-error review).

## Conclusion

Because the defense used Alder to attack the credibility of Charter’s key expert, Charter was entitled to cross-examine Alder about a relationship with the same liability insurer defending Chleborad to show possible bias; the improper restriction was prejudicial, requiring a new trial.


Charter v. Chleborad, 551 F.2d 246 (8th Cir. 1977)