Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital of the Philadelphia, 58 A.3d 102

Thomas Bruckshaw, as Administrator of Patricia Bruckshaw’s estate, sues Frankford Hospital, Jefferson Health System, and physicians Priest and Metcalf for medical malpractice and wrongful death.
Trial produced a 20-member jury (12 principals and 8 alternates) and involved unusual courtroom logistics with a different courtroom and equipment.
A principal juror (Juror 12) was removed and replaced by an alternate (Juror 20) before or during deliberations, allegedly by a court officer without notice or a record.
Juror 20 ultimately served as foreperson and the verdict (10–2) was delivered on February 21, 2008, with counsel unaware of Juror 12’s replacement during deliberations.
Appellant moved for post-trial relief seeking a new trial on grounds of improper juror substitution and lack of notice; the trial court denied relief.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court, holding that juror removal must be by the trial court on the record for cause with notice, and that a new trial is required due to prejudice from the substitution.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Who may remove a juror and under what process?	Removal by a court officer without notice violated rules.	Replacement by an alternate juror is permissible; the substitution was harmless.	Removal must be by the trial court on the record, for cause, with notice.
Does substitution outside the proper process require a new trial?	Improper substitution undermines the integrity of the trial and warrants a new trial.	A single erroneous substitution does not necessarily require reversal if impartial.	A new trial is required due to the systemic irregularity and potential prejudice.
Should prejudice be shown to grant relief for juror substitution errors?	Presume prejudice given unknown substitution and last-alternate seating.	Prejudice should be shown only upon record-supported analysis.	Presumption of prejudice applies; new trial mandated.
Was the last-alternate substitution in order and properly recorded?	Replacing with the last alternate, not the next sequential, signals improper handling.	Any competent juror could serve; sequence matters less if verdict is valid.	Substitution in this manner violated proper sequencing and procedures; invalid practice.

Commonwealth v. Saxton, 353 A.2d 434 (Pa. 1976) (reversal for juror removal without adequate record support)
Commonwealth v. Abu-Jamal, 720 A.2d 79 (Pa. 1998) (juror hostility and discretion in removal; prejudice not shown in that case)
Colosimo v. Pennsylvania Electric Co., 518 A.2d 1206 (Pa. 1986) (sanctity of jury; restrictions on prosecutorial or judicial contact with jurors)
Commonwealth v. Bradley, 459 A.2d 733 (Pa. 1983) (prophylactic rule against ex parte communications; need for record)
Carter by Carter v. U.S. Steel Corp., 604 A.2d 1010 (Pa. 1992) (fairness in civil and criminal jury procedures; import of impartiality)
Remmer v. United States, 350 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1956) (presumption of prejudicial impact from jury influence)