Summary
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed a judgment for an emergency-room physician in a wrongful-death medical-malpractice action. The court held that the jury verdict was supported by substantial evidence, that the trial court properly denied posttrial discovery into jury deliberations under Alabama Rule of Evidence 606(b), and that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination in jury strikes. The court also declined to consider certain evidentiary and cost issues that were not properly preserved or supported by authority.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the jury's defense verdict was plainly and palpably wrong so as to require a new trial or vacation of the judgment.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying posttrial discovery concerning the jury's deliberations and by quashing the juror subpoenas.
- Whether the defendant's peremptory strikes of female veniremembers established a prima facie case of gender discrimination under Batson and J.E.B.
- Whether the trial court erred in excluding the plaintiffs' exhibits.
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' motion to tax costs after the first trial ended in a mistrial.
Holdings
- The jury verdict for Dr. Gerlach was not plainly and palpably wrong because substantial evidence supported the jury's resolution of conflicting expert testimony concerning the applicable standard of care and whether Dr. Gerlach breached it.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in quashing the juror subpoenas and denying posttrial discovery because the plaintiffs' affidavits concerned evidence presented at trial and jurors' deliberations, not extraneous prejudicial facts or outside influence.
- The plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination merely by showing that the defendant used seven of ten strikes against women and that three women remained on the jury; therefore, the trial court properly denied the Batson objection without requiring gender-neutral explanations.
- The appellate court would not consider the plaintiffs' objections to the excluded exhibits because the objections were not raised at trial and the appellate brief lacked supporting authority.
Key quotations
“"[W]hen the evidence meets the `sufficiency' test, jury verdicts are presumed correct, and this presumption is strengthened by the trial court's denial of a motion for new trial. Therefore, a judgment based upon a jury verdict and sustained by the denial of a post-judgment motion for a new trial, will not be reversed on a weight-of-the-evidence ground unless it is `plainly and palpably' wrong."” (650)
“"Generally, affidavits are inadmissible to impeach a jury's verdict. An affidavit showing that extraneous facts influenced the jury's deliberations is admissible; however, affidavits concerning `the debates and discussions of the case by the jury while deliberating thereon' do not fall with this exception."” (652)
“"Without more, we do not find that the number of strikes this prosecutor used to remove women from the venire is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination."” (655)
Factual background
Quanetta M. Buchannon, age 19, was brought to a hospital emergency room after three days of vomiting, nausea, and diarrhea, five days after delivering a child by cesarean section. Dr. Gerlach diagnosed endometritis, consulted the on-call obstetrician, Dr. Giddens, and treated Buchannon with Rocephin and doxycycline before releasing her for follow-up care. Buchannon became unconscious the next morning and died from septic shock caused by endometritis. At trial, the plaintiffs' expert testified that Dr. Gerlach's care fell below the applicable standard, while the defense expert testified that it met the standard of care.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued Dr. Gerlach, Dr. Giddens, and Jackson County Hospital for wrongful death and medical malpractice. The claims against Dr. Giddens and Jackson County Hospital were settled and dismissed. After Dr. Gerlach left the courtroom when called as the plaintiffs' first witness, the trial court declared a mistrial and denied the plaintiffs' motion to tax costs. At the second trial, the jury returned a verdict for Dr. Gerlach. The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motions for a new trial, to vacate the judgment, and to conduct posttrial discovery of jurors, and it denied their Batson challenge and evidentiary arguments.