Key Takeaway
Court allows subpoena of expert witness billing records to show bias in personal injury case. Plaintiff entitled to cross-examination materials about doctor's financial interests.
Porcha v Binette, 2017 NY Slip Op 08141 (4th Dept, 2017)
(1) After defendants gave notice that they intended to call Dr. Riegler as an expert witness at trial, plaintiff served a judicial subpoena duces tecum on the nonparties and defendants’ insurer seeking the production of various documents and materials. As relevant to these appeals, in paragraph two of the subpoena plaintiff sought production of all billing and payment records related to examinations performed by Dr. Riegler on behalf of all insurance companies and attorneys for the prior five years. Plaintiff sought such information to ascertain any possible bias or interest on the part of Dr. Riegler.
(2) The nonparties and defendants moved, inter alia, to quash the subpoena, and Supreme Court denied the motions in part. The nonparties and defendants now appeal. Contrary to the contention of the nonparties and defendants, the court properly denied those parts of the motions seeking to quash paragraph two of the subpoena. Plaintiff was entitled to the information to assist her in preparing questions for cross-examination of Dr. Riegler concerning his bias or interest (see Dominicci v Ford, 119 AD3d 1360, 1361 ; see generally Salm v Moses, 13 NY3d 816, 818 ).
Related Articles
- Understanding Article 10 Evidentiary Issues: Expert Witness Testimony and Hearsay Rules in New York Courts
- Expert Competency and Medical Literature in New York Medical Malpractice and No-Fault Cases
- Civil Court Decisions in No-Fault Insurance: When Legal Reasoning Goes Wrong
- An expert can testify about the standard of care of a “sub-specialist” in appropriate cases
- New York No-Fault Insurance Law
