Defendant driver rear-ended plaintiff who alleged she suffered a serious impairment of a body function, as defined by the PA Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act. Plaintiff testified regarding the impact of her condition on day-to-day life, however, the investigation of the plaintiff’s expert witnesses was critical to this victory.
The credibility of Plaintiff’s medical expert was undermined by Mr. Bruderle following in-depth background investigation which revealed the Philadelphia based general practitioner had previously been a general surgeon in Florida and New York. The expert had been sanctioned by the Florida Physicians Licensure Board for fraudulent billing practices and subsequently censured for performing surgery without a patient’s consent; he relinquished his Florida license and maintained his New York license on the contingency that he did not intend to practice in that state. The expert was confronted with this evidence under cross-examination prior to trial refusing to acknowledge the records presented. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel conceded in his opening statement that his expert had a “checkered past.” As a contrast, Mr. Bruderle’s expert is recognized as a credible healthcare professional in the community and was known to several of the members of the jury pool. A defense verdict followed.