Milner v. Luttrell
2011 Ark. App. 297
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Milner underwent a gastric-bypass in 1977 and laterneeded a revision; surgery on May 13, 1999 was described as reversal, but a Roux-en-Y bypass was performed instead.
- Postoperatively Milner developed reflux and other GI problems, leading to another surgeon reversing the Roux-en-Y.
- Milner sued Dr. Luttrell in 2001 for negligence in performing the procedure without consent and allegedly incorrectly.
- A jury found Luttrell not liable; Milner sought posttrial relief which the circuit court denied, prompting appeal.
- Before trial, the court barred references to insurance; during opening statements a letter mentioning insurance was displayed, leading Milner to seek strike or mistrial relief, which the court denied; the court also barred use of Luttrell’s prior deposition and denied a new-trial request based on juror misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred by denying mistrial relief for an insurance reference | Milner contends the inadvertent insurance mention violated collateral-source rule and warranted mistrial or striking Luttrell’s testimony | Luttrell argues the omission was inadvertent and an admonition sufficed; no abuse of discretion | No reversible error; no abuse of discretion in denying mistrial or striking |
| Whether the trial court properly denied a new trial for juror misconduct | Evidence suggested jurors had outside medical knowledge affecting deliberations | Rule 606(b) prevents juror testimony about deliberations; disclosures were not extraneous prejudicial information | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion as affidavits insufficient to show prejudice |
| Whether the court properly excluded Luttrell’s prior deposition for impeachment | Deposition from a prior case could impeach Luttrell on residency and board status | Deposition lacked relevancy; what happened in residency is not probative to present case; Rule 103 rights respected | Exclusion affirmed; no substantial right affected; deposition not relevant |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Barber, 356 Ark. 268, 149 S.W.3d 325 (2004) (abuse-of-discretion standard for mistrial/strike decisions)
- Rodgers v. McRaven’s Cherry Pickers, Inc., 302 Ark. 140, 788 S.W.2d 227 (1990) (abuse of discretion for striking evidence; standard for relief)
- Fairpark, LLC v. Healthcare Essentials, 2011 Ark. App. 146, 381 S.W.3d 852 (2011) (standard for abuse of discretion in evidentiary decisions)
- Cincinnati Life Ins. Co. v. Mickles, 85 Ark. App. 188, 148 S.W.3d 768 (2004) (motions posttrial; timing of mistrial relief; posttrial arguments not new basis for relief)
- Waste Mgmt. of Ark., Inc. v. Roll Off Serv., 88 Ark. App. 343, 199 S.W.3d 91 (2004) (Rule 606(b) limitations; juror affidavits require specificity)
- Watkins v. Taylor Seed Farms, Inc., 295 Ark. 291, 748 S.W.2d 143 (1988) (juror knowledge from life experience not extraneous information)
- Hard v. Burlington Northern Railway Co., 870 F.2d 1454 (9th Cir. 1989) (juror professional knowledge not per se extraneous prejudicial information)
- Grotemeyer v. Hickman, 393 F.3d 871 (9th Cir. 2004) (juror physician knowledge not automatically prejudicial)
- Crawford v. Head, 311 F.3d 1288 (11th Cir. 2002) (juror expertise; admissibility considerations)
- U.S. v. Holck, 398 F.Supp.2d 338 (E.D. Pa. 2005) (juror professional background and information)
- Caldararo v. Vanderbilt Univ., 794 S.W.2d 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (juror knowledge from spouse of a nurse)