Insuring Bias: Does Evidence of Common Insurance Demonstrate Relevant Expert Witness Bias in Medical Negligence Litigation?

94 Pages Posted: 3 Feb 2017 Last revised: 15 Feb 2017

See all articles by Marc Ginsberg

Marc Ginsberg

University of Illinois at Chicago - UIC School of Law

Date Written: February 14, 2017

Abstract

Does "common insurance" shared by the defendant-physician and the medical expert-witness establish an expert bias? In the past ten to fifteen years, the common insurance question has received attention by the state courts. It has been well understood that "evidence" of the presence or absence of liability insurance is simply inadmissible to prove fault pursuant to the Federal Rule of Evidence 411. Rule 411, however, is not a complete bar to admissibility and allows the trial court to admit evidence of liability insurance to prove a witness's bias or prejudice. This paper explores the various "models" of common insurance evidence, the theory of common insurance "bias" and the professional risk potentially assumed by expert witnesses who give false testimony.

Keywords: Evidence, Insurance, Medicine, Torts, Expert Witnesses, Federal Rule of Evidence 411, Federal Rule of Evidence 609

Suggested Citation

Ginsberg, Marc, Insuring Bias: Does Evidence of Common Insurance Demonstrate Relevant Expert Witness Bias in Medical Negligence Litigation? (February 14, 2017). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2910706 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2910706

Marc Ginsberg (Contact Author)

University of Illinois at Chicago - UIC School of Law ( email )

IL

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Downloads
117
Abstract Views
790
Rank
474,932
PlumX Metrics