Lewis, E. v. Mercy Suburban Hospital
936 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 6, 2017Background
- Esther and Mark Lewis sued Mercy Suburban Hospital after Esther received two undiluted 12.5 mg IV doses of Phenergan in the ER on October 20, 2005 and later developed tissue/nerve damage and reflex sympathetic dystrophy.
- Jury trial resulted in a defense verdict; the Lewises appealed the denial of two trial rulings.
- First issue: Plaintiffs moved to strike Juror No. 1 for cause because his employer (a durable medical equipment company) did business with physicians/therapists who had privileges at Mercy Suburban.
- Second issue: Plaintiffs sought to impeach a treating nurse with a December 2006/2008 FDA safety pamphlet recommending dilution of IV Phenergan; the court excluded it as irrelevant and confusing because it post-dated the 2005 treatment.
- The trial court denied both motions; the Superior Court reviewed for abuse of discretion and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Juror No. 1 should have been struck for cause due to employer ties to Mercy Suburban | Juror’s employer does business with doctors/therapists who have privileges at Mercy, creating a close financial/situational tie and presumed bias | The tie was indirect/remote (business with physicians, not Mercy directly); juror said he had no personal dealings and could be fair | Denied — no presumed bias from indirect relationship; no abuse of discretion refusing strike (court applied Shinal standard) |
| Whether a 2006 FDA safety pamphlet could be used to impeach a treating nurse about Phenergan administration | Pamphlet shows a recognized safety recommendation to dilute Phenergan and could impeach witness’s claim that dilution was unnecessary | Pamphlet post-dates 2005 treatment so is not probative of the standard of care at the time; limited impeachment value outweighed by risk of juror confusion | Denied — pamphlet irrelevant to standard of care at time of treatment and likely to confuse jury; exclusion not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Shinal v. Toms, 162 A.3d 429 (Pa. 2017) (indirect employment ties do not automatically require juror disqualification; removal required if juror believes outcome will financially affect employer)
- Commonwealth v. Koehler, 737 A.2d 225 (Pa. 1999) (trial court’s decision on juror disqualification reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- McHugh v. Proctor & Gamble Paper Prods. Co., 776 A.2d 266 (Pa. Super. 2001) (close financial relationship between juror and party can give rise to presumed bias)
- Hatwood v. Hosp. of the Univ. of Pa., 55 A.3d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2012) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversible error requires prejudice)
- Rittenhouse v. Hanks, 777 A.2d 1113 (Pa. Super. 2001) (standard of care must be tied to time of treatment)
- Stapas v. Giant Eagle, Inc., 153 A.3d 353 (Pa. Super. 2016) (definition of abuse of discretion and standards for appellate review)