Chayce Collier (“Chayce”), a minor, by and through his parent and next friend, Kendall Collier (“Plaintiff”), sued Periclis Roussis, M.D. (“Dr. Roussis”), Fort Sanders Perinatal Center, and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center (“the Hospital”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) alleging health care liability in Chayce’s delivery.
A major issue at trial was whether Dr. Roussis fell below the standard of care by failing to administer epinephrine to Plaintiff when she had an anaphylactic reaction during labor. The jury found for Defendants. However, it emerged that a juror had gone home and looked at the warning on an epipen which said that epinephrine should only be used when the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. The juror shared this information with the rest of the jury.
Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the Trial Court first granted and then denied. Plaintiff appealed. Under Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b), jurors may not be asked what effect, if any, that extraneous information had on them. Instead, courts look to the extraneous information itself to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that it altered the verdict.
The Court of Appeals of Tennessee at Knoxville (“Tennessee Appellate Court”) held in its opinion filed on February 20, 2024 “there is a reasonable possibility that the extraneous information shared with the jury in this case altered the verdict, and Defendants failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice. The Trial Court applied an incorrect legal standard and thereby abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. We reverse the judgment of the Trial Court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.”
Preponderance of the Evidence vs. Clear and Convincing Evidence Standard
“We conclude that, in the wake of Adams and more recent published caselaw, the burden of proof for a party alleging juror misconduct is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. By holding Plaintiff to a clear and convincing evidentiary burden, the Trial Court applied an incorrect legal standard.”
“The Trial Court also stated that “Rule 606(b) does not preclude the question to jurors as to whether or not that information affected them.” However, as shown in the authorities above and the rule itself, the opposite is the case. Jurors may not be asked what effect, if any, that extraneous information had on them. They can only be asked what information they received, not what effect it had … Here, the information was shared with the whole jury during its deliberations. The information was thus broadly shared and shared at a crucial time in the jury’s decision-making process… Plaintiff has successfully proven juror misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence. Even if the burden of proof were clear and convincing evidence as Defendants state, Plaintiff would have met that burden too because based on this record there is no serious or substantial doubt that Jacobsen shared what he is alleged to have shared with the jury. Under our “purely de novo standard” of review on the question of whether the jury’s verdict was affected by the extraneous prejudicial information as required by the Tennessee Supreme Court in Adams, 405 S.W.3d at 656, we hold that there is a reasonable possibility that the extraneous information at issue altered the jury’s verdict. We hold further that the Trial Court abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.”
Source Kendall Collier vs. Periculis Roussis M.D., No. E2022-00636-COA-R3-CV.
If you or a loved one may have been harmed as a result of medical malpractice in Tennessee or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Tennessee 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.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
