Cordes v. Associates of Internal Medicine
87 A.3d 829
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2014Background
- Cordes (administratrix) sues for medical malpractice over Dr. Ray's vertigo misdiagnosis and Plavix cessation; victim suffered a massive stroke and died two days later.
- Jury selection on May 6, 2011; Appellant challenged three venirepersons for cause due to relationships with Dr. Ray or associated entities; trial court denied challenges and jury returned defense verdict in favor of appellees.
- Appellant argued missteps in voir dire and appearance of partiality due to close familial/financial relationships; trial court’s discretion to excuse venirepersons for cause disputed.
- Three jurors: Kaelin (parental patient relationship with Dr. Ray), Snowden (spouse treated by Dr. Ray), Majors (employee of Heritage Valley with ownership link to Tri-State/Dr. Ray’s employer) led to asserted for-cause errors.
- Trial court denied motion for mistrial after verdict; this appeal seeks reversal and remand; court vacates judgment and remands for new trial due to for-cause errors and appearance of impartiality.
- Court vacates judgment, reverses denial of mistrial, rules mistrial; remands for new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kaelin and Snowden should have been struck for cause | Kaelin/ Snowden had close familial connections to Dr. Ray, creating presumed prejudice. | No direct relationship with Dr. Ray; assurances of impartiality disregard indirect ties. | Per se prejudice found; Kaelin and Snowden disqualified for cause. |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying for-cause challenges given indirect relationships | Indirect relationships can create appearance of bias; trial court failed to assess for presumption of prejudice. | Colon framework requires discerning between direct vs indirect; trial court’s discretion should prevail absent palpable error. | Trial court erred in not sua sponte recognizing presumptive prejudice; remand for new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- McHugh v. P&G Paper Prods. Co., 776 A.2d 266 (Pa. Super. 2001) (establishes presumption of prejudice for close relationships at trial)
- Commonwealth v. Colon, 299 A.2d 326 (Pa. Super. 1972) (two categories for cause challenges; presumption of prejudice when close relationship)
- Schwarzbach v. Dunn, 381 A.2d 1295 (Pa. Super. 1977) (indirect/spousal relationships may warrant per se exclusion; caution urged)
- Seeherman v. Wilkes-Barre Co., 99 A. 174 (Pa. 1916) (early authority on necessity of impartial juror; avoidance of partiality)
- Commonwealth v. Johnson, 445 A.2d 509 (Pa. Super. 1982) (limits on per se exclusion when indirect relationships exist; discretionary review)
- Blasioli v. Blasioli, 685 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 1996) (attenuated physician-patient relationships, deference to trial court)
- Perry v. Commonwealth, 657 A.2d 991 (Pa. Super. 1995) (direct relationship with a witness can compel exclusion)
- Koehler v. Commonwealth, 737 A.2d 225 (Pa. 1999) (attenuated relationship; discretionary review favored)