Professional Negligence Law Reporter
Medicine
You must be a Professional Negligence Law Reporter subscriber to access this content.
If you are a member of AAJ's Professional Negligence Section or a subscriber, log in below. Not yet a Section member? Join today!
Join the Professional Negligence SectionAlready a subscriber? Log in
Refusal to excuse juror with connection to defendant physician was not abuse of discretion
July/August 2020A Washington appellate court held that a trial court had not abused its discretion in allowing a juror with a connection to a defendant doctor to serve on the jury in a medical negligence case.
Here, a child and his parents sued obstetrician Kevin Harrington, alleging his negligence during the child’s delivery led to his brachial plexus nerve injury. The plaintiffs sought to exclude various prospective jurors for cause where they had a child delivered by the defendant, including juror 25. Although the court excused several of the jurors, juror 25 ultimately served on the jury, which found for the defendant. The plaintiffs appealed.
Affirming, the appellate court noted that a trial court is in the best position to determine whether a juror can be fair and impartial by observing the juror’s demeanor and evaluating his or her answers. The existence of a doctor-patient relationship between the juror and one party does not imply bias, the court said, adding that the party who is challenging the juror must show actual bias that prevents the potential juror from deciding the case impartially and without prejudice. Citing case law, the court also said that the trial court must examine relevant circumstances to determine a juror’s actual bias.
Here, the court determined, the trial judge allowed both the plaintiffs and the defendant to question each juror about their relationship to Harrington, and the judge provided a reasoned decision on the record regarding each challenge for cause. Those potential jurors with a recent or ongoing relationship with the defendant or jurors who expressed favoritism toward him were excluded, the court noted; nevertheless, the trial court found that juror 25, who had a remote relationship with the defendant, could remain impartial.
Consequently, the court here held that the trial court had adequate grounds for declining to excuse juror 25 and, therefore, had not abused its discretion.
Citation: C.R. v. Harrington, 2020 WL 1158097 (Wash. Ct. App. Mar. 10, 2020).
