New Trial Warranted Where RN Juror Described Personal Experiences in the ER In Med-Mal Trial Deliberations

 Wobbler v. Kamath, California Court of Appeals (August 12, 2021) A159347:

The trial court dismissed an RN juror, seated an alternate juror, then, after Defendant-physician obtained a favorable verdict, granted a new trial based on juror misconduct.  This decision was upheld by the appellate court.  A key evidentiary issue at trial was whether the plaintiff had been wearing a bandage over the sutured incision in his arm when he arrived by ambulance at the hospital.  The evidentiary record on this issue was solely medical staff notes of the injured party's condition arriving at the hospital but no clear reference to a bandage.  No medical staff testified regarding the notes.  During deliberations the RN juror, ding to the affidavit of another juror, "brought inter own personal experience as an RN...and expressed her nursing opinions to the other jurors on various issues."  The RN juror stated that the presence of a bandage on his arm would have been documented at the time of his admission to the ER.  The trial judge characterized this as "specialized information" constituting prohibited juror misconduct under California law.  The judge further found this information to be prejudicial and that the specific instance stated by the affiant-juror were more credible that the RN juror's general denials.

In California the evaluation of jury misconduct is a 3-point inquiry:

1.  Are the affidavits supporting the motion for new trial admissible?  If so,

2.  Do the facts establish misconduct by the juror?, If so,

3.  Was the misconduct prejudicial?

The trial judge answered all 3 affirmatively and is granting a new trial was affirmed.

One can only imagine the jurors insisting that the RN juror answer their questions about best practices in the emergency room.  Judges instruct jurors that they do not have to leave their personal experiences and common sense at the door to the deliberation room.  However, this does not extend to specialized knowledge.  Nevertheless, we still have doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, mechanics, etc., serving on juries.  Always a cause for concern if their expertise is part of the subject matter of the trial.