The Court of Appeals of Indiana held in its opinion filed on January 31, 2024: “In this medical malpractice case, Amanda Ping (“Ping”) appeals following a jury verdict in favor of Margaret Inman, M.D. (“Dr. Inman”). Ping challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error based on juror misconduct. Ping argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing on her juror misconduct claim. Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request for an evidentiary hearing, we reverse and remand with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issue of juror misconduct.”
In her Indiana medical malpractice complaint, Ping alleged that Dr. Inman had committed medical malpractice when Dr. Inman had sewn Ping’s vaginal cuff to her bladder during her exploratory laparoscopy. In 2020, a medical review panel found no medical malpractice, and Ping filed her medical malpractice lawsuit with the trial court. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury ruled in favor of Dr. Inman. The trial court allowed counsel for both sides to informally speak with the jury.
After the off-the-record meeting, Ping’s attorneys sent an email to the trial court and Dr. Inman’s attorney in which they notified the parties that they were researching the juror misconduct issue. Thereafter, Ping filed a motion to correct error. In her motion, Ping argued that she was entitled to a new trial due to juror misconduct. Ping also argued that she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Juror 11 was biased.
The Court of Appeals of Indiana stated, “Here, our review of the record reveals that Juror 11 did not disclose her familiarity with Dr. Cheadle [one of Dr. Inman’s two experts who testified during trial] until after the jury had rendered its verdict. There was no opportunity for Ping, Dr. Inman, or the trial court to probe into Juror 11’s possible bias due to her familiarity with Dr. Cheadle.”
The Court of Appeals of Indiana held: “Because the record shows that there was a possibility of juror bias, the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing. See Lopez, 527 N.E.2d at 1130. At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court can determine the extent of Juror 11’s knowledge of Dr. Cheadle and if it interfered with her ability to render a verdict
solely on the evidence presented at trial. Much like we had previously held in Diehl, “the inquiry that should have occurred during voir dire must now occur in a post-trial evidentiary hearing.” Diehl, 12 N.E.3d at 298. Accordingly, we
remand to the trial court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Juror 11 was actually biased or prejudiced against Ping due to her familiarity with Dr. Cheadle through her work as a medical device vendor.”
Source Ping v. Inman, M.D., Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-CT-251.
If you or a loved one were harmed as a result of medical malpractice in Indiana or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find an Indiana medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your malpractice claim for you and represent you or your loved one in a medical malpractice malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
