Heaney v. Hewes
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-01083-COA Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-01083-COA ; 2007-CT-01083-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-30-2008 Opinion Author: ROBERTS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Medical malpractice - Challenges for cause Judge(s) Concurring: Myers, P.J., Ishee, and Carlton, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lee, P.J., and Chandler, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : King, C.J., and Griffis, J. Concurs in Result Only: Barnes, J. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - MEDICAL MALPRACTICE |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-25-2007 Appealed from: Harrison County Circuit Court Judge: Jerry O. Terry, Sr. Disposition: JURY VERDICT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS Case Number: A-2401-98-543 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | KATHLEEN W. HEANEY |
JOSEPH E. ROBERTS,
GRADY L. MCCOOL |
||
| Appellee: | THOMAS F. HEWES, M.D. AND WILLIAM L. SEIDENSTICKER, M.D. | HARRY R. ALLEN, ROSS DOUGLAS VAUGHN |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Medical malpractice - Challenges for cause |
| Summary of the Facts: | Kathleen Heaney sued Dr. Thomas Hewes and Dr. William Seidensticker for medical malpractice. During voir dire, several members of the venire indicated that they had either direct or indirect professional contact with Dr. Hewes and/or Dr. Seidensticker. Heaney requested that the circuit court excuse those members of the venire for cause, but the circuit court declined to excuse some of those jurors. Ultimately, the jury returned a verdict for Dr. Hewes and Dr. Seidensticker. Heaney appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Heaney argues that the circuit court committed reversible error when it did not grant her challenges for cause. Sixteen members of the fifty-three-person venire had direct or indirect prior professional contacts with Dr. Hewes and/or Dr. Seidensticker. The recent case of Hamilton v. Hammons, 792 So. 2d 956 (Miss. 2001) suggests that jurors with prior contacts should not be per se summarily excused for cause. The Court said it should be borne in mind that jurors take their oaths and responsibilities seriously, and when a prospective juror assures the court that, despite the circumstance that raises some question as to his qualification, this will not affect his verdict, this promise is entitled to considerable deference. In this case, both Dr. Hewes and Dr. Seidensticker were retired at the time of the trial. Thus, no member of the venire had an ongoing doctor/patient relationship with one of the defendants, and there was no risk that a member of the venire would be influenced by the possibility of future treatment by one of them. In addition, Heaney’s attorney did not request that the circuit court grant him additional peremptory challenges, nor did he request that the circuit court increase the size of the venire – which are both curative steps the circuit court might consider. There was no clear abuse of discretion in the circuit court’s decisions regarding jury selection. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
