Title: Randolph v. ER Arkansas, P.A.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Ophelia RANDOLPH, Administratrix of the
Estate of Melvalene Hanson, Deceased v. ER
ARKANSAS, P. A., James Guthrie, Ouachita
Clinic, Ltd., J. R. Kendall and Judson M.
Hout

95-968                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered July 15, 1996


1.   Jury -- appellant has burden of proving venireman unqualified
     -- test used for juror bias determination. -- It is presumed
     that persons comprising the venire are unbiased and qualified
     to serve, and it is appellant's burden to prove otherwise; the
     proper test that the court must employ when sorting through
     juror-bias issues is whether the prospective juror can lay
     aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based
     upon the evidence in court. 

2.   Jury -- juror qualification within trial court's discretion --
     when trial court will be reversed. -- The qualification of a
     juror is within the sound discretion of the trial court, which
     has an opportunity to observe the venire members that the
     appellate court does not have; the trial court will not be
     reversed unless the appellant demonstrates an abuse of
     discretion; here, the trial court followed the correct test in
     its voir dire of the juror and acted well within its
     discretion to permit her to serve.  

3.   Jury -- no error to refuse proffered non-AMI instruction --
     language in instruction that was allowed more than sufficient.
     -- The duty the defendants owed the deceased in this medical
     negligence case was covered by AMI 1501, as given; it is not
     error to refuse a proffered non-AMI instruction, even if it
     correctly states the law; the same or similar locality rule
     articulately expressed in AMI 1501 is proper, adequate, viable
     and not unduly restrictive on the evidence a plaintiff may
     introduce; accordingly, the language contained in AMI 1501 was
     found to be more than sufficient to have permitted the
     decedent's estate to develop the evidence and argue to the
     jury that her expert was entitled to credence based on his
     familiarity with similar localities in terms of medical
     facilities, practices, and advantages.


     Appeal from Ouachita Circuit Court; Carol Crafton Anthony,
Judge; affirmed.
     Gary Eubanks & Associates, by:  James Gerard Schulze and Hugh
F. Spinks, for appellant.
     Shackleford, Phillips, Wineland, & Ratcliff, P.A., by:  Dennis
L. Shackleford and Teresa Wineland, for appellees.

     Tom Glaze, Justice. 
     *ADVREP*SC8*



OPHELIA RANDOLPH,
Administratrix of the Estate of
MELVALENE HANSON, DECEASED,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

ER ARKANSAS, P.A., JAMES
GUTHRIE, OUACHITA CLINIC, LTD.,
J. R. KENDALL and JUDSON N.
HOUT,
                    APPELLEES.



95-968

Opinion Delivered:  7-15-96

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT
OF OUACHITA COUNTY, ARKANSAS,
NO. CIV-92-166; HONORABLE CAROL
CRAFTON ANTHONY, JUDGE




AFFIRMED


                  TOM GLAZE, Associate Justice

     This action was brought as a result of alleged medical
malpractice that resulted in the wrongful death of Melvalene
Hanson.  Hanson's estate sued appellees, alleging Hanson had
complained of chest and arm pains, and after having been examined
and released by Doctors J. R. Kendall and Judson Hout on two
separate occasions within four days, she died of a heart attack at
home only a few hours after her second release from treatment.  The
gravamen of the estate's allegations of medical negligence was that
the doctors failed to perform an electrocardiogram (EKG).  
     Before trial and during voir dire of the jury, a number of
veniremembers indicated they knew the doctors, and the estate moved
to disqualify those potential jurors who had had (or had) a
relationship with them.  One of those jurors, Melba George, served
on the twelve-person jury, and is the subject of one of the points
for reversal in this appeal.  The estate's second issue for
reversal concerns its out-of-state expert witness, Dr. James
Goldstein, who testified that an EKG was essential in Hanson's
circumstances, and Doctors Kendall and Hout had deviated from the
standard of good medical care when no EKG was performed.  Because
the defense focused on Goldstein's lack of familiarity with the
standard of care in Camden, Arkansas, the estate offered, and was
denied, an instruction it believed would have better explained the
so-called "locality rule" instruction the trial court gave the
jury.  The jury retired and returned a verdict in favor of the
defendants, and the estate brings this appeal, asserting the two
points raised below.
     In the estate's first argument, it complains of seven
different veniremembers who had had some type of social, working,
or medical relationship with either Kendall or Hout.  Four of these
jurors did not serve on the jury, and several, who did serve, had
not been challenged peremptorily or for cause.  Suffice it to say,
the estate's argument centers on Melba George, who, the estate
suggests, was challenged for cause and wrongfully allowed to serve;
thus, we turn our attention to George.  In doing so, we keep in
mind the controlling principle that it is presumed that persons
comprising the venire are unbiased and qualified to serve, and it
is appellant's burden to prove otherwise.  Kemp v. State, 324 Ark.
178, 919 S.W.2d 943 (1996).  In addition, the proper test the court
must employ when sorting through these juror-bias issues is whether
the prospective juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and
render a verdict based upon the evidence in court.  Wainwright v.
State, 302 Ark. 371,