Cordova v. Emergency Professional Servs., Inc.
2017 Ohio 7245
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Lynn and Raymond Cordova sued Dr. Thomas Mucci for medical malpractice after Lynn’s diverticulitis allegedly was misdiagnosed in the ER, leading to bowel rupture and extensive surgery.
- Voir dire revealed multiple medically trained veniremembers; juror No. 3 was an internal medicine physician with 20 years’ experience who treated diverticulitis and IBS.
- Juror No. 3 said she could weigh credibility, follow the burden of proof, and would “try” to be fair, but also said she did not think she could entirely set aside her own medical knowledge and admitted an initial sympathy toward physicians and that she would not personally bring a malpractice suit against a colleague.
- The trial court denied the Cordovas’ challenge for cause to remove juror No. 3; the Cordovas used a peremptory strike to remove her and subsequently exhausted their peremptories.
- The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict for Dr. Mucci. The Cordovas appealed, arguing the court erred by refusing to excuse juror No. 3 for cause under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) and (D).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether juror No. 3 had to be excused automatically under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) because she disclosed she could not be fair or follow the law | Cordova: As a physician on a medical-malpractice case who said she could not set aside her knowledge, juror No. 3 could not be impartial and must be disqualified as a principal challenge | Mucci: Juror stated she could follow law and be fair; specialized knowledge alone is not grounds for automatic disqualification | Court: Abuse-of-discretion review; juror’s answers did not show inability to follow law or be impartial → no automatic disqualification; trial court did not abuse discretion |
| Whether juror No. 3 should be excused under R.C. 2313.17(D) for bias or partiality | Cordova: Juror’s statements show bias in favor of physicians and inability to set aside medical knowledge → unsuited juror | Mucci: Juror repeatedly assured court she could be fair and impartial; trial court’s follow-up cured any doubt | Court: Defer to trial judge who heard juror; follow-up questioning showed juror could be impartial → no abuse of discretion |
| Whether trial court’s limitation on counsel’s questioning (to avoid tainting panel) was error | Cordova: Wanted to probe juror’s medical views about diverticulitis/ER vs office diagnosis | Mucci: Such detailed medical questioning risks informing/tainting other jurors; inappropriate on voir dire | Court: Upheld trial court’s rulings to sustain objections — preventing juror from giving substantive medical testimony on voir dire was proper |
| Whether use of a peremptory to remove juror No. 3 and exhaustion of peremptories warrants a new trial | Cordova: Forced to use a peremptory on juror No. 3 and thus could not strike another biased juror (juror No.5) | Mucci: Parties had full opportunity to use peremptories; no request for additional peremptories; no prejudice shown | Court: Moot given above holdings; in any event record showed Cordovas could have used peremptories differently and no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400 (discussing jury system’s role in community judgment)
- Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U.S. 412 (juror impartiality standard; seek jurors who will conscientiously apply law and find facts)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (due process requires a jury willing and able to decide case solely on evidence)
- Hall v. Banc One Mgt. Corp., 114 Ohio St.3d 484 (principal challenges require automatic disqualification if proven)
- Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 Ohio St.3d 254 (abuse-of-discretion definition)
- Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83 (abuse-of-discretion standard discussion)
- Huertas, State v., 51 Ohio St.3d 22 (trial court’s credibility judgments about juror bias entitled to deference)
- Berk v. Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161 (trial court deference in juror-bias determinations)