JACKSON, Miss. (Legal Newsline) - The plaintiff who lost a medical malpractice lawsuit also lost her challenge to the verdict over complaints the judge refused to dismiss two jurors who had been treated by the defendant or another doctor in her practice.
Jalena Taylor and her husband Brian sued Dr. Donielle Daigle and Premier Women’s Health after she had a complete hysterectomy because of massive bleeding during childbirth. The Taylors claimed Dr. Daigle had failed to perform an examination of her vagina to determine the source of the bleeding early enough, causing her to lose the ability to have any more children.
A jury rejected the Taylors’ claims 12-0. They appealed, but the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the decision in a July 21 opinion.
On appeal, the Taylors argued they were denied a fair trial because the judge refused to reject two jurors for cause, forcing them to use up two of their four preemptory challenges to keep them off the jury. One potential juror had been a patient of Dr. Daigle in the past but said she could be impartial. The other had been a patient in the same practice as Dr. Daigle but couldn’t remember the name of the doctor she saw. She also said she wouldn’t let that affect her decision in the case.
The Taylors argued there was no reason for the judge to reject their request to dismiss the jurors for cause, since there were plenty more candidates in the pool to take their places. They also sought a new trial because they claimed the only expert testimony presented proved their allegation the defendant deviated from the standard of care.
The Supreme Court rejected both arguments. “The selection of jurors is ‘a judgment call peculiarly within the province of the circuit judge, and one we will not on appeal second guess in the absence of a record showing a clear abuse of discretion,’” the court said, citing an earlier decision.
The court struck two other jurors who were current patients of Dr. Daigle, the high court said, even though they said they could be fair.
“Therefore, we find the trial court did not err by refusing to strike prospective jurors 8 and 14,” the court said.
As for the evidence, the court said: “All twelve of the jurors agreed on the verdict, and the verdict was not against the overwhelming weight of the evidence. It should not be disturbed.”