Simon v. Maldonado
2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 5557
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Maldonados sued Dr. Simon and affiliates for negligent failure to diagnose and treat their minor daughter's cancer after a broken femur.
- On the first day of jury selection, juror Subaran disclosed a prior legal claim; other jurors were questioned individually about answers.
- The jury found no negligence by Dr. Simon; verdict favorable to defendants.
- Post-verdict, Maldonados moved for a new trial based on alleged juror misDisclosure and other grounds; motion did not allege factual bases for juror interview.
- Ten days after the verdict, Maldonados moved to interview jurors, attaching affidavits asserting possible juror misconduct; trial court granted interview and a new trial based on Subaran’s alleged non-disclosures.
- Dr. Simon and others appeal the order granting a new trial and cross-appeal the trial court’s rulings on admissibility of Fabre defendant status and evidentiary issues regarding Dr. Simon’s background.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the juror interview was properly ordered | Maldonados argue the affidavit showed possible nondisclosures warranting inquiry. | Simon contends affidavits were insufficient and late; interview was improper. | The affidavit was insufficient; the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the juror interview and new trial. |
| Whether nondisclosures justified a new trial under De La Rosa | Nondisclosures were material and warrants new trial. | Disclosures were not material; not proven to affect trial fairness. | Nondisclosures not shown to be material; new trial improper. |
| Admission of Fabre defendant status on verdict form | Fabre defendant should not be listed if liability not established against original defendant. | Fabre defendant proper when liability of original defendant not established as a matter of law. | Fabre defendant status upheld; treating doctor admissible as Fabre defendant. |
| Admissibility of evidence of subsequent treating doctor’s alleged negligence | Subsequent negligence evidence should be inadmissible to show causation | Evidence admissible to show causation unless plaintiff proves original defendant liable as matter of law | Admissible and proper to include as Fabre defendant on verdict form. |
| Cross-examination regarding Dr. Simon’s training and residency | Cross-examination could probatively show performance issues and link to subsequent gender discrimination suit | Risk of prejudice from collateral litigation; probative value outweighed by prejudice | Trial court properly excluded cross-examination about training and residency. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baptist Hosp. v. Maler, 579 So. 2d 97 (Fla.1991) (juror interview only with sworn factual allegations supporting new trial)
- De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1995) (three-part test for juror nondisclosure)
- Parra v. Cruz, 59 So. 3d 211 (Fla.3d DCA 2011) (undisclosed information not squarely asked may not warrant interview)
- Albertsons, Inc. v. Johnson, 442 So.2d 371 (Fla.2d DCA 1983) (allegations cannot be based on mere speculation for juror interview)
- Beyel Bros. v. Lemenze, 720 So.2d 556 (Fla.4th DCA 1998) (timeliness requirement for motions related to juror interviews)