Armstrong v. Gynecology & Obstetrics of DeKalb, P.C.
327 Ga. App. 737
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Armstrongs filed a medical malpractice action after their daughter was stillborn following treatment by Gynecology & Obstetrics of DeKalb and three physicians.
- A jury returned a verdict for all defendants, and Armstrongs moved for a new trial based on juror misconduct.
- The trial court conducted an extensive, individualized juror inquiry and found no prejudice to the verdict from juror use of cell phones to look up definitions.
- Georgia’s post-verdict juror testimony rule was discussed, including OCGA § 24-6-606(b) and related federal-law-like considerations.
- Armstrongs challenged a hindsight jury instruction in a medical malpractice context and the court reviewed its appropriateness under Smith v. Finch and related precedent.
- The trial court limited rebuttal testimony from Dr. Shehata, a pathologist, as cumulative and not rebutting asserted defense evidence; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct prejudice standard | Armstrongs contend juror conduct prejudiced verdict. | Defendants argue no prejudice; trial court’s finding supported by record. | No abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown. |
| Hindsight jury instruction | Hindsight charge inappropriate; evidence did not warrant it. | Hindsight instruction proper given contested timing and placental abruption. | Charge authorized by evidence; upheld. |
| Limitation of rebuttal testimony | Rebuttal witness properly offered to address defense expert testimony. | No proper rebuttal; testimony cumulative and irrelevant to rebut defense. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riddle v. Beker, 232 Ga. App. 393 (1998) (juror affidavits post-verdict limited; criminal exception)
- Jones v. State, 326 Ga. App. 658 (2014) (evidence code parallels; appellate review guidance)
- Mayhue v. St. Francis Hosp., 969 F.2d 919 (10th Cir. 1992) (five-factor prejudice test for extraneous information)
- United States v. Rowe, 906 F.2d 654 (11th Cir. 1990) (prejudice not presumed; credibility of prejudice assessment varies by context)
- Smith v. Finch, 285 Ga. 709 (2009) (approval of first sentence of pattern instruction in malpractice context)
- Steele v. Atlanta Maternal-Fetal Medicine, 271 Ga. App. 622 (2005) (hindsight instruction supported by evidence of late hospitalization issue)