## Facts

- Lisa Hillman received prenatal care from Dr. Jerry Woolum; an ultrasound in July 2002 was normal and a due date was set for mid-September 2002.
- In early August 2002, Hillman presented with elevated blood pressure and was diagnosed with pregnancy-induced hypertension (preeclampsia); Woolum warned of serious risks and prescribed bed rest with frequent follow-ups.
- Hillman’s condition worsened over the following weeks; delivery was ultimately planned for early September 2002, before the original due date.
- On the night before the scheduled induction, Hillman went into labor and was admitted to the hospital; staff could not detect a fetal heartbeat, and the child was delivered stillborn.
- Woolum did not recommend an autopsy and attributed the death to preeclampsia; at trial, he also advanced an alternative causation theory involving a genetic disorder.
- The parents sued for wrongful death and medical malpractice, alleging negligent management of preeclampsia and failure to deliver timely.
- Woolum retained Dr. Butcher as an expert; Butcher had a longstanding professional relationship with Woolum and expressed strong views that malpractice litigation increased premiums.
- Over objection, the trial court allowed limited evidence that Woolum and Butcher were insured by the same malpractice carrier, for the purpose of showing possible expert bias.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by admitting limited evidence that the defendant physician and his expert shared the same malpractice insurer to prove potential expert bias.
2. Whether other challenged evidentiary rulings, including aspects of insurance-related testimony, were unfairly prejudicial and required reversal.
3. Whether the defendant was entitled to a directed verdict on causation due to allegedly insufficient proof that earlier delivery would have prevented the stillbirth.
4. Whether alleged juror misconduct required a new trial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed the judgment for the plaintiffs and found no reversible error.
- The trial court acted within its discretion in admitting shared-insurer evidence for the limited purpose of showing expert bias.
- The remaining evidentiary complaints did not warrant reversal under abuse-of-discretion review.
- Denial of a directed verdict on causation was proper because the plaintiffs presented competent expert testimony supporting causation and conflicting expert views created a jury question.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the juror-misconduct claim because the record did not show a reasonable probability of prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence of liability insurance is generally inadmissible to avoid unfair prejudice, but it may be admitted for a limited, non-liability purpose such as showing a witness’s bias or interest, subject to probative-value versus unfair-prejudice balancing and limiting control by the trial court.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings is deferential; reversal requires an abuse of discretion and prejudicial effect on the outcome.
- A directed verdict is improper where, viewing the evidence favorably to the nonmovant, there is evidence of probative value supporting the claim; conflicts in expert testimony on medical causation typically present a jury question.
- Juror-misconduct claims require a showing of a reasonable probability of prejudice; trial-court determinations on prejudice are reviewed deferentially.

## Conclusion

The Kentucky Supreme Court left intact a jury verdict for parents in a wrongful-death medical-malpractice action arising from a stillbirth, holding that limited shared-insurer evidence was permissible to show expert bias, the causation proof was sufficient for jury resolution, and neither the other evidentiary challenges nor the asserted juror misconduct justified a new trial.


Woolum v. Hillman, 329 S.W.3d 283 (Ky. 2010)