Amy Labate & Robert Labate, Individually and On Behalf of Minor Daughter, J.L. v. Rutland Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Rutland Regional Medical Center and Santiago Cancio-Bello, M.D.
132 A.3d 1083
Vt.2015Background
- Amy and Robert Labate sued Rutland Regional Medical Center (RRMC) and Dr. Santiago Cancio‑Bello for malpractice related to their daughter’s 2007 birth; jury trial held Aug 11–22, 2014 in Rutland Superior Court.
- During voir dire a prospective juror disclosed he "worked there" doing security at RRMC; he was not struck and served on the jury.
- While trial was ongoing a local newspaper article ran; RRMC’s CEO emailed two RRMC staff/physician listservs denying liability and stating outside experts, insurer, and counsel concurred with RRMC’s position.
- Plaintiffs moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct/impermissible outside influence, arguing at least one juror likely received/read the e‑mail and it was meant to influence jurors by asserting defendants were not at fault.
- Trial court denied the motion without a hearing, finding (1) no evidence the juror actually received or read the e‑mail and (2) even if read the e‑mail contained no new information relevant to the jury’s actual basis for verdict (plaintiffs failed to establish the applicable standard of care).
- On appeal the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed, concluding (a) any determination whether extraneous information reached the jury could involve juror inquiry under V.R.E. 606(b), but (b) even assuming the juror saw the e‑mail its content lacked capacity to affect the dispositive jury finding and the trial court did not abuse discretion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the RRMC e‑mail constituted extraneous prejudicial information that could taint the jury | Labate: e‑mail was calculated to influence jurors (one juror worked at RRMC), implying plaintiffs lacked a meritorious case | RRMC: no proof any juror received/read the e‑mail; content merely repeated defendants’ denial already before jury | Court: even if juror read it, content had no capacity to affect the dispositive finding (plaintiffs failed to prove standard of care), so no abuse of discretion in denying new trial |
| Allocation/burden of proof on showing juror misconduct in civil case | Labate: urges criminal‑style burden shifting (once exposure shown, nonmoving party must show harmlessness) | Defendants: argue plaintiffs failed to show exposure or prejudice | Court: declined to adopt civil burden‑shift rule here; outcome did not turn on allocation of burden; trial court’s discretionary finding reviewed for abuse of discretion |
| Admissibility of juror testimony about extraneous information under V.R.E. 606(b) | Labate: sought to show juror was influenced and therefore verdict tainted | Defendants: pointed to rule limiting juror testimony about deliberations but allowing inquiry whether extraneous info was brought to jury | Held: court clarified V.R.E. 606(b) allows juror inquiry into whether extraneous information was presented but not into deliberative effects; trial court misstated law in part but its ultimate conclusion stood |
| Whether Plaintiffs may raise new theories on appeal about the e‑mail (e.g., constitutional impartiality, character evidence) | Labate: advanced broader theories on appeal | RRMC: trial court had no opportunity to address new theories | Held: appellate court refused to consider new theories not raised below |
Key Cases Cited
- Bellows Falls Vill. Corp. v. State Highway Bd., 190 A.2d 695 (Vt. 1963) (two‑step test for extraneous information and its capacity to prejudice verdict)
- Mattox v. United States, 146 U.S. 140 (U.S. 1892) (historic criminal‑law rule on private communications to jurors)
- State v. Mead, 54 A.3d 485 (Vt. 2012) (discussion of juror misconduct burden and constitutional protections in criminal cases)
- Losier v. Ravi, 362 S.W.3d 639 (Tex. App. 2009) (fact question whether irregularity occurred)
- Markee v. Biasetti, 575 N.E.2d 1083 (Mass. 1991) (civil juror‑misconduct burden shifting discussion)
- Cooch v. S & D River Island, LLC, 85 A.3d 888 (Md. 2014) (detailed analysis of juror misconduct and proof of prejudice in civil context)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (U.S. 1993) (jury presumed to follow instructions)
- Senesac v. Assocs. in Obstetrics and Gynecology, 449 A.2d 900 (Vt. 1982) (plaintiff bears burden to establish applicable standard of care in medical‑malpractice suits)