Patrina P. Reynolds v. Allied Emergency Services, PC
193 So. 3d 625
Miss.2016Background
- Plaintiff Patrina Reynolds sued Allied Emergency Services and Dr. Paul Bracey for medical malpractice after treatment that allegedly resulted in sepsis and blindness; she settled with St. Dominic’s before trial.
- Parties entered a pretrial "high/low" agreement: a guaranteed low payment to Reynolds in the event of a defense verdict and a capped liability (high) for defendants if plaintiff prevailed; the agreement stated "No party will retain any appeal rights."
- At trial the court read the approved jury instructions, but during deliberations the bailiff mistakenly delivered the defendants’ proposed instruction packet (including a refused peremptory instruction that told the jury to find for defendants).
- The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict. After dismissal, the court discovered the wrong instruction packet had been given, and parties were recalled. Plaintiff moved for mistrial; the trial court denied mistrial but, sua sponte under Rule 59(d), granted a new trial.
- Defendants then moved to enforce the high/low agreement to bar post-trial relief; the trial court reversed its own new-trial order, held the agreement precluded post-verdict post-trial motions, dismissed the case with prejudice, and plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the verdict is void because jurors received incorrect instructions | Reynolds: Wrong instructions (including a refused peremptory instructing verdict for defendants) vitiate the verdict and require relief | Defendants: Trial is over once verdict returned; any error is not grounds for mistrial and plaintiff’s team caused the misplacement | Court: Verdict was vitiated by extraneous/prejudicial instructions; no valid verdict was "achieved," so condition precedent to high/low not satisfied; new trial appropriate (mistrial unavailable post-verdict) |
| Whether a mistrial was required because of extraneous influence | Reynolds: URCCC 3.12 mandates mistrial where trial cannot proceed in conformity with law or prejudice exists | Defendants: Rule inapplicable after jury returned verdict; no misconduct alleged | Court: URCCC 3.12 cannot be invoked after verdict; mistrial improper but court may grant a new trial under Rule 59(d) — new trial was proper |
| Whether the high/low agreement’s waiver of "appeal rights" bars a new trial or other post-trial relief | Reynolds: "Appeal rights" refers to appellate review only and does not bar a trial-court new trial; parties did not clearly waive post-trial remedies | Defendants: Phrase and communications show parties intended to forgo post-trial remedies, cutting off motions/new trials | Court: "Appeal rights" is unambiguous (connotes appellate review) and does not bar trial-court post-trial relief; trial court erred in admitting parol evidence to expand the waiver |
| Whether the settlement can bind parties to an improper verdict | Reynolds: Parties never agreed to be bound by an improper/void verdict; high/low only triggers upon an actual verdict | Defendants: Agreement contemplated verdicts and intended to finalize litigation regardless | Court: Because the verdict was void, condition precedent to the high/low agreement was unsatisfied; agreement did not preclude a Rule 59(d) new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Mississippi Valley Silica Co., Inc. v. Eastman, 92 So. 3d 666 (Miss. 2012) (trial judge must provide instructions that accurately state the law)
- Young v. Guild, 7 So. 3d 251 (Miss. 2009) (jurors are presumed to follow court instructions)
- Collins v. State, 701 So. 2d 791 (Miss. 1997) (materials provided by court officers carry authority and may be treated as extraneous influence)
- Kolberg v. State, 829 So. 2d 29 (Miss. 2002) (trial court bears ultimate responsibility to instruct the jury properly)
- Hare v. State, 5 Miss. 187 (Miss. 1839) (irregularities that may affect jury impartiality can vitiate a verdict and justify undoing the proceedings)