Background
After losing her medical malpractice case against Dr. Margaret Inman, Amanda Ping learned that one of the jurors who returned the adverse verdict had not disclosed that she recognized the name of a defense expert witness. Ping sought
a new trial, which the trial court summarily denied. Ping then appealed, claiming she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to prove the juror committed misconduct.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana agreed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing, at which Juror 11 testified that she merely recognized the defense expert’s name as that of the surgical department chairman at a Kentucky university hospital the juror once serviced as a medical device vendor.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the juror’s failure to reveal her limited knowledge of the defense expert did not constitute gross misconduct or result in probable harm to Ping, who again appealed.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana stated in its Memorandum Decision filed on June 5, 2025, to merit a new trial upon a claim of juror misconduct, the challenger must show that the misconduct was gross and probably harmed the challenging party. In determining whether gross misconduct in all likelihood harmed the complaining party is within the trial court’s discretion.
The Indiana appellate court stated: “Regarding alleged contradictions in Juror 11’s testimony, the trial court appeared to find Juror 11’s testimony credible on three key points: (1) Juror 11 genuinely did not realize her connection to Dr. Cheadle’s name during voir dire; (2) her knowledge was limited to seeing his name on a hospital marquee; and (3) this recognition did not influence her evaluation of his testimony or her verdict. The trial court determined that Juror 11’s delayed disclosure was inadvertent. Given her limited knowledge of Dr. Cheadle and her failure to share even that minimal information with other jurors, the court concluded that Juror 11’s familiarity with the doctor did not introduce extraneous prejudicial information into any juror’s deliberations. Having directly observed Juror 11’s testimony and demeanor during the evidentiary hearing, the trial court was uniquely positioned to evaluate her credibility—the sole evidence supporting Ping’s juror misconduct claim. We will not disturb this credibility determination on appeal.”
The Indiana appellate court further stated, “Even if we were to find gross misconduct, Ping has not demonstrated probable harm. To merit a new trial, a party claiming juror misconduct must show not only that the misconduct was gross but also that it “probably harmed” the challenging party.”
The Indiana appellate court held: “Finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining no gross juror
misconduct and that no probable harm resulted even if gross misconduct occurred, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.”
Source Amanda Ping v. Margaret Inman, M.D., Court of Appeals Case No. 24A-CT-2394.
If you or a loved one were injured (or worse) as a result of medical malpractice in Indiana or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Indiana medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your medical malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Visit our website or call us on our toll-free number in the United States (800-295-3959) to find medical malpractice attorneys near you who may help you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
