148 So. 3d 45
Ala.2013Background
- Venoria Womack underwent a CT scan on May 11, 2007; Dr. Ann Mottershaw (and The Radiology Group) read that scan and allegedly failed to detect a cancerous nasopharyngeal mass.
- A second CT dated May 25, 2007 (read by other radiologists) also showed the mass but those radiologists were not parties at trial; an August MRI later detected the cancer.
- Ledbetter, as administrator, sued for malpractice; all defendants but Dr. Mottershaw and The Radiology Group were dismissed. Plaintiff moved in limine to exclude evidence that other providers failed to detect the cancer (including the May 25 CT); the court granted that motion.
- At trial, Defendant’s Exhibit 7 (Shands medical records) was admitted but was supposed to be redacted to remove references to the May 25 CT; the redaction was not completed and the unredacted exhibit went to the jury.
- During deliberations the jury asked about the “test from the 25th”; the court replied that all properly admitted exhibits had been provided. After verdict for defendants, plaintiff discovered the unredacted references and moved for a new trial.
- The trial court granted a new trial, finding jurors were exposed to extraneous material (the unredacted May 25 references) and that exposure might and did prejudice plaintiff; the defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court abused discretion in granting a new trial because the jury was exposed to unredacted references to the May 25 CT | Jurors saw extraneous, excluded material that might have — and did — influence verdict; new trial required | The court should defer to the jury verdict; exposure was harmless or not prejudicial | Affirmed: trial court did not exceed discretion; exposure might have unlawfully influenced jury, warranting new trial |
| Whether this is not an "extraneous-material" case and those precedents are inapplicable | Exposure to material defendants failed to redact is functionally the same as extraneous evidence and triggers same analysis | Defendants argue a semantic distinction and that cited extraneous-material cases do not apply | Rejected: court treated it as extraneous-material exposure; precedent applies |
| Whether plaintiff waived objection by not timely objecting to admission of Exhibit 7 or isolated references at trial | Plaintiff relied on in limine order and did not waive; failure to spot redaction by both sides is not invited error | Defendants contend plaintiff failed to preserve objections and could have requested a curative instruction | Rejected: in-limine order and post-verdict discovery of unredacted material preserved plaintiff’s right to seek a new trial |
| Whether striking defendants’ late attorney affidavit and denying costs was error | Plaintiff argues for striking untimely affidavit; new trial means defendants not prevailing so costs inappropriate | Defendants argue the affidavit should have been considered and costs should be taxed to plaintiff | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in striking untimely affidavit under Rule 59(c); denying costs proper because new trial granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ex parte Apicella, 809 So.2d 865 (Ala. 2001) (sets two-part test for extraneous-material prejudice: actual prejudice or prejudice as a matter of law)
- Ex parte Arthur, 835 So.2d 981 (Ala. 2002) (discusses presumed prejudice where extraneous material was crucial to a key issue)
- Reed v. State, 547 So.2d 596 (Ala. 1989) (no single fact controls juror-misconduct analysis; examine case-specific circumstances)
- Gold Kist, Inc. v. Tedder, 580 So.2d 1321 (Ala. 1991) (trial court did not abuse discretion granting new trial where unadmitted exhibit might have influenced jury)
- Ex parte Troha, 462 So.2d 953 (Ala. 1984) (error for jury to receive an exhibit not admitted into evidence)
- Beauchamp v. Coastal Boat Storage, LLC, 4 So.3d 443 (Ala. 2008) (discusses deference to trial court on new-trial rulings not based solely on weight of evidence)