Merchant v. Forest Family Practice Clinic, P.A., et al.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CA-01622-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-11-2011
Opinion Author: Randolph, J.
Holding: Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Part and Remanded

Additional Case Information: Topic: Wrongful death - Change of venue - Section 11-11-3(3) - Juror misconduct - M.R.E. 606(b) - Withholding substantial evidence
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson and Dickinson, P.JJ., Lamar and Pierce, JJ.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part 1: Kitchens, J.
Concur in Part, Dissent in Part Joined By 1: Chandler and King, JJ.
Procedural History: JNOV
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - WRONGFUL DEATH

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 06-11-2009
Appealed from: Scott County Circuit Court
Judge: Marcus D. Gordon
Disposition: Denied Appellant's motion for JNOV based upon alleged juror misconduct.
Case Number: 2008-CV-280-SC-G

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Dot Merchant, as Administratrix of The Estate of Charles Ernie Harris, Sr., and on behalf of all Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Charles Ernie Harris, Sr.




SHANE F. LANGSTON REBECCA M. LANGSTON



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: Forest Family Practice Clinic, P.A. and John P. Lee, M.D. ANASTASIA G. JONES MILDRED M. MORRIS JAMES A. BECKER, JR. TIMOTHY LEE SENSING  

    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: Wrongful death - Change of venue - Section 11-11-3(3) - Juror misconduct - M.R.E. 606(b) - Withholding substantial evidence

    Summary of the Facts: In August 2008, the Estate of Charles Ernie Harris, Sr. filed a medical malpractice action against John P. Lee, M.D., and the Forest Family Practice Clinic in the Scott County Circuit Court. Three days prior to trial, the Estate filed a “Motion to Transfer Venue” based upon Dr. Lee’s status in the community and his son’s position as the Scott County Sheriff. The court denied the motion. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Dr. Lee and the Clinic. Following the circuit court’s entry of “Final Judgment,” the Estate filed a “Motion to Investigate Juror Misconduct, to Set Aside or Void Jury Verdict, to Void or Set Aside Final Judgment, for New Trial, and to Change Venue.” The circuit court denied the Estate’s post-trial motions, and the Estate appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Change of venue Section 11-11-3(3) provides, in pertinent part, that any action against a licensed physician including any legal entity which may be liable for their acts or omissions, for malpractice, negligence, error, omission, mistake, breach of standard of care or the unauthorized rendering of professional services shall be brought only in the county in which the alleged act or omission occurred. In this case, the circuit court denied the Estate’s “Motion to Transfer Venue” from that statutorily required forum, but also summoned additional jurors to expand the venire and granted six additional peremptory challenges to each side. Under these circumstances, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Estate’s “Motion to Transfer Venue.” As to denying several of the Estate’s “for-cause” challenges, the circuit court cannot be found to have abused its discretion because the Estate exercised only seven of its ten peremptory challenges. Regarding denial of the Estate’s motion for mistrial following the improper question by counsel opposite, the record shows that the circuit judge sustained the Estate’s objection to the question, issued an instruction for the jury to disregard the question, and then received an affirmative response from the jury that his instruction would be heeded. The jury is presumed to have followed the directions of the trial court. Issue 2: Juror misconduct A jury verdict impermissibly influenced, without adherence to the evidence and in defiance of instructions of the trial court, cannot be sanctioned, as that verdict is the product of a trial that is neither fair nor impartial. M.R.E. 606(b) prohibits jurors from testifying to statements made during jury deliberations, subject to the exception that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Unbeknownst to the circuit court in this case, the voir dire and jury-deliberation processes were flawed. Specifically, affidavit and subsequent testimony of a juror offered unrebutted evidence that another juror failed to truthfully answer questions during voir dire, which implicated an outside influence contemplated by Rule 606(b). The juror failed to respond honestly to voir dire queries and did not reveal until jury deliberations that “he had been a patient of . . . Dr. Lee . . . .” Additionally, the juror’s repeated references to the separate lawsuit against Dr. Clark, another “good docto[r],” despite the circuit court’s clear and unequivocal instruction to disregard the lawsuit against Dr. Clark, reveals a decision guided by neither the evidence admitted nor the circuit court’s instructions of law. The juror’s failure to respond to the voir dire questions amounted to withholding substantial information which would have provided a valid basis for challenge for cause. In fact, the Estate had challenged “for cause” all individuals who had been treated by Dr. Lee, and several of those individuals had been excused by the circuit court “for cause.” Thus, the Estate’s right to a fair, impartial and competent jury was prejudicially compromised.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court