## Facts

- Sheri Ede died after surgery performed by George R. Dakoske, M.D.
- Charles Ede, as administrator of Sheri Ede’s estate, sued Dakoske and Atrium South OB-GYN, Inc. for wrongful death and medical malpractice.
- The defense called Dr. Schneider as an expert witness.
- Schneider and Dakoske were both insured for malpractice by the same carrier, Physicians Insurance Exchange (PIE).
- The plaintiff sought to cross-examine Schneider and introduce evidence of the shared insurer to show potential bias based on a shared financial and professional interest.
- The trial court excluded the insurance-related bias evidence under Ohio Evid.R. 403 and 411, concluding unfair prejudice substantially outweighed probative value.
- The jury returned a verdict for the defendants; the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether a plaintiff may introduce evidence that a defense medical expert and a defendant physician share the same malpractice insurer to show the expert’s bias under Evid.R. 411.
2. Whether excluding such bias evidence as unfairly prejudicial under Evid.R. 403(A) is an abuse of discretion warranting reversal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Ohio reversed and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the trial court unreasonably excluded evidence of the shared malpractice insurer.
- The court ruled that, when offered to show witness bias, insurance evidence is permitted by Evid.R. 411 and was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice under Evid.R. 403(A).
- The exclusion was an abuse of discretion because it improperly discounted the probative value of the shared-insurer relationship in evaluating credibility.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of liability insurance is inadmissible to prove negligence, but may be admitted for another purpose, including showing a witness’s bias, interest, or prejudice. (Evid.R. 411)
- Even when evidence carries some risk of prejudice, it may not be excluded under Evid.R. 403(A) unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury.
- The scope of cross-examination to expose an expert’s bias is generally within the trial court’s discretion, but restrictions that are unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable constitute reversible error.
- A shared malpractice insurer between a defendant and a defense expert can be relevant to the expert’s credibility as bias evidence, even absent proof of insurer coercion.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because excluding evidence that the defense expert and defendant physician shared the same malpractice insurer improperly prevented meaningful bias impeachment and exceeded permissible limits on evidentiary discretion under Evid.R. 403 and 411.


Ede v. Atrium S. OB-GYN, Inc., 71 Ohio St. 3d 124, 642 N.E.2d 365 (Ohio 1994)