Zona Mayo v. Donna L. Shine, M.D.
2012 Tenn. App. LEXIS 425
Tenn. Ct. App.2012Background
- Zona Mayo, born with severe brain injury, sued Dr. Shine, Shine's practice group, and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center for medical malpractice related to the birth.
- A jury trial resulted in a verdict finding no liability for Dr. Shine or the Hospital’s nurses.
- Plaintiff moved for a new trial; the trial court denied, and Mayo appealed.
- The appellate court vacates the judgment and remands for a new trial based on evidentiary errors and cross-examination limitations.
- The court found reversible error due to admission of irrelevant evidence about Mayo’s mother’s subsequent pregnancy, cross-examination restrictions, disparaging court remarks, and out-of-state counsel references.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Juror misconduct | Jurors discussed extraneous information prejudicial to Mayo. | Extraneous information did not prejudice the verdict; lack of evidence of prejudice. | No reversible error on juror misconduct alone. |
| Admission of evidence of mother's subsequent pregnancy | Evidence irrelevant and highly prejudicial to Dr. Shine and Mayo. | Evidence relevant to credibility and causation should be admissible. | Error to admit; not harmless; reversible. |
| Cross-examination of Dr. Shine | Plaintiff had right to extensive cross-examination to clarify Dr. Shine’s testimony. | Reasonable limits allowed to prevent obstruction; 30-minute cap was appropriate. | Error to severely limit cross-examination; reversible. |
| Disparaging comments by the Trial Court | Court comments implied plaintiff’s claims were a waste of time. | Comments were not prejudicial beyond permissible oversight. | Potentially prejudicial error; contributed to denial of fair trial; reversible. |
| References to out-of-state counsel (Maryland) | Motion in limine barred such references; these statements were prejudicial. | References were harmless comments by opposing counsel. | Error to allow references; remand with instruction to comply with in limine. |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Rose, 892 S.W.2d 410 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (extraneous information must prejudice verdict to justify reversal)
- Caldararo v. Vanderbilt University, 794 S.W.2d 738 (Tenn. App. 1990) (verdicts cannot rely on information outside trial evidence)
- Overstreet v. Shoney’s Inc., 4 S.W.3d 694 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (cross-examination scope justified to clarify testimony)
- Sands v. Southern Ry., 108 Tenn. 1, 64 S.W. 478 (Tenn. 1901) (English rule allowing broader cross-examination)
- Ray v. Hutchison, 17 Tenn. App. 477, 68 S.W.2d 948 (Tenn. App. 1933) (cross-examination scope and purpose)
- Lyle v. Exxon Corp., 746 S.W.2d 694 (Tenn. 1988) (trial court sanctions for discovery abuses; abuse of discretion standard)
- Buckner v. Hassell, 44 S.W.3d 78 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (sanctions for failure to identify expert witness; trial court discretion)
- Stanfield v. Neblett, 339 S.W.3d 22 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (sanctions and disclosure requirements for expert testimony)
- 4 S.W.3d 694, Overstreet v. Shoney’s Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) (cross-examination purpose and limits)
- Harris v. Baptist Memorial Hospital, 574 S.W.2d 730 (Tenn. 1978) (opening statements discretion of trial courts)