[Cite as Cordova v. Emergency Professional Servs., Inc., 2017-Ohio-7245.]

Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION 

No. 105061 

LYNN CORDOVA, ET AL.

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS

vs.

EMERGENCY PROFESSIONAL 

SERVICES, INC., ET AL. 

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

JUDGMENT: 

AFFIRMED

Civil Appeal from the 

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas 

Case No. CV-14-834741 

BEFORE: Boyle, J., Keough, A.J., and E.A. Gallagher, J. 

RELEASED AND JOURNALIZED: August 17, 2017 
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS 

Stuart E. Scott 

Dustin B. Herman 

Spangenberg, Shibley & Liber, L.L.P. 

1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700 

Cleveland, Ohio 44114 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

For Thomas Mucci, D.O. 

Erin Siebenhar Hess 

Reminger Co., L.P.A. 

1400 Midland Building 

101 Prospect Avenue, West 

Cleveland, Ohio 44115 

Also Listed: 

For Community Health Systems 

Professional Services Corporation 

Michael Ockerman 

Rocco D. Potenza 

Hanna, Campbell & Powell, L.L.P. 

3737 Embassy Parkway, Suite 100 

Akron, Ohio 44333 

For Emergency Professional Services, Inc. 

Philip J. Truax 

Wickens, Herzer, Panza, Cook & Batista 

35765 Chester Road 

Avon, Ohio 44011-1262 
For Youngstown Ohio Hospital 

Company, L.L.C., d.b.a. Northside 

Medical Center

Youngstown Ohio Hospital Company 

c/o CSC Lawyers Incorporating Service 

50 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 

Columbus, Ohio 43215 
MARY J. BOYLE, J.: 

{¶1} This appeal involves a medical malpractice action following a unanimous 

jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee, Thomas Mucci, D.O. Plaintiffs-appellants, 

Lynn and Raymond Cordova, in their sole assignment of error, argue that the trial court 

impermissibly refused to excuse juror No. 3 — an internal medicine physician — for 

cause. 

{¶2} This appeal strikes at the core of our legal system: the jury. The purpose 

of our jury system is to impress upon the community as a whole that a verdict is given in 

accordance with the law by persons who are fair and impartial. See Powers v. Ohio, 499 

U.S. 400, 111 S.Ct.1364, 113 L.Ed.2d 411 (1991). Stated another way, “the quest is for 

jurors who will conscientiously apply the law and find the facts.” Wainwright v. Witt, 469 

U.S. 412, 423, 105 S.Ct. 844, 83 L.Ed.2d 841 (1985). 

{¶3} The Cordovas claim that they did not receive a fair jury composition 

because the trial court refused to remove juror No. 3 for cause, which forced them to use 

one of their three peremptory challenges to remove her from the venire and precluded 

them from exercising a peremptory challenge on another prospective juror. They ask 

this court to adopt a position that any potential juror, who has specialized experience, 

education, or knowledge about a field of study at issue in a case, must be excused for 

cause even if that prospective juror states that he or she will be fair, impartial, and will 

follow the law. Not only do we find the record void of evidence that juror No. 3 would 
not follow the law or would not be fair and impartial, we also decline to adopt the 

Cordovas’ position regarding the removal of prospective jurors with challenges for cause. 

{¶4} For the reasons that follow, we affirm. 

I. Procedural History

A. Nature of the Lawsuit

{¶5} The Cordovas filed a medical malpractice complaint against several parties, 

including Dr. Mucci.1

 The Cordovas alleged that Lynn had recently been diagnosed 

with diverticulitis by her primary care physician. According to the Cordovas, when 

Lynn later went to the emergency room, she told Dr. Mucci about the diagnosis for 

diverticulitis, but Dr. Mucci improperly diagnosed and treated Lynn for irritable bowel 

syndrome. The Cordovas claimed that Lynn’s diverticulitis worsened until her bowel 

ruptured, necessitating emergency life-saving surgery, the removal of 90 percent of 

Lynn’s large intestine, and leaving her with a colostomy bag. They asserted that Dr. 

Mucci’s negligent care and treatment caused Lynn’s injuries for which they sought 

monetary damages. 

{¶6} Dr. Mucci argued that he met the standard of care in his treatment of Lynn 

at the emergency room. Dr. Mucci argued that nothing, including antibiotics or a CAT 

scan, would have prevented Lynn’s injuries. According to Dr. Mucci, after he 

diagnosed Lynn with irritable bowel syndrome in the emergency room, she developed an 

obstruction, which led to a perforation located on the other side of her bowel from where 

 1

The only defendant-appellee in this appeal is Dr. Mucci. 
the diverticula is located. Dr. Mucci argued that the obstruction and perforation, which 

were not present during his examination of Lynn at the emergency room, are what led to 

the emergency life-saving surgery and caused Lynn’s resulting injuries. 

B. Voir Dire 

{¶7} The case proceeded to a jury trial and jury selection began. The case 

would center around diverticulitis and irritable bowel syndrome, along with their 

symptoms, causes, diagnoses, and treatment options. 

{¶8} During voir dire, the trial court seated the first set of eight prospective 

jurors. Notably, several of the prospective jurors had medical backgrounds: juror No. 

1 — a cardiothoracic surgical intensive care nurse; juror No. 3 — an internal medicine 

physician; juror No. 5 — a nurse practitioner with an anesthesiologist husband; and juror 

No. 6 — an infectious disease physician. 

{¶9} At the outset of the voir dire, the trial court explained the following: 

It’s a common experience, however, that no matter how skillful the 

examination may be, no matter how extensive its scope, after it is all over 

there may lurk in the minds of you some deep-rooted reason why you 

cannot be fair and impartial to sit as a juror in this case, and no question 

may bring this out. 

If that’s the case, we want you to speak out frankly so we may be assured 

that the jury chosen to try the issues in this case will decide them fairly and 

impartially to both the Plaintiff and Defense. 

{¶10} The trial court then questioned the prospective jurors individually. Juror 

No. 3 explained that she had been an internal medicine physician for 20 years. The trial 

court then asked juror No. 3 the following: 
Q. The burden of proof is to prove their case, causation, damages, by a 

preponderance of the evidence, the greater weight of the evidence. 

Can you do that? 

A. Yes. 

* * * 

Q. Can you test the credibility or believability of the witnesses? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Okay. Because [there are] going to be experts coming in, so to 

speak, and you’re going to have to weigh their testimony. Fair 

enough? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Any prejudices that you had that you can set aside? 

A. Yes. 

* * * 

Q. Any reason you feel you can’t be fair and impartial to anybody here? 

A. No. 

{¶11} After the trial court completed its questioning of the prospective jurors, the 

Cordovas’ counsel questioned them. The following reflects his questioning of juror No. 

3: 

Q. [T]his internal medicine, area of diverticulitis, irritable bowel 

syndrome is right in your bailiwick in terms of your training and 

experience in your day-to-day practice? 

A. Yes. 
Q. Can you tell us what training and your experience is with regards to 

the diagnosis and treatment of first diverticulitis? 

A. Um, in terms of training, internal medicine, I don’t have a 

sub-specialty. I’m a primary care physician. In terms of 

experience, I treat both through the hospital as well as at the hospital. 

* * * 

Q. The thing is you heard from the Judge when he was reading to you 

about the lawsuit, a primary care physician actually diagnosed Lynn 

Cordova with diverticulitis in the office setting. Is that something 

you have ever done, diagnosed diverticulitis in the office setting? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And I assume that you’ve had training through your residency and 

experience to do that, to diagnose diverticulitis based on its clinical 

symptoms and signs in the office? 

A. Yes. 

Q. How frequently do you see diverticulitis as a diagnosis in your office 

based — the office based portion of your practice? 

A. In the office itself it comes up maybe once maybe every two months. 

Q. And based on the training that you’ve received, what are the signs, 

symptoms, and manner in which you diagnose diverticulitis — 

[Dr. Mucci’s counsel objected and the trial court sustained the objection.] 

Q. Is there — to your knowledge, is there a difference in the diagnosis 

of diverticulitis in the office setting as opposed to the emergency 

medicine or emergency department setting? 

[Dr. Mucci’s counsel objected and the trial court sustained the objection.] 
Q. There’s obviously going to be other doctors who are going to come 

and testify with regards to the medical issues in this case, about the 

diagnosis and how diverticulitis and irritable bowel syndrome are 

diagnosed. Given that you have, obviously, a lot of firsthand 

experience, training and so forth, are you going to be able to set 

aside your knowledge and listen and rely only on the evidence that 

comes through the records, or through witnesses, who will be 

presented throughout the course of the trial, or is it going to be kind 

of hard to set aside what you actually — what you actually know? 

A. I don’t think I can set aside my knowledge. It’s my knowledge. 

Q. Is irritable bowel syndrome a diagnosis that you make as an internal 

medicine doctor? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And have you received education, training and on-the-job experience 

in the diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome? 

A. Yes, through residency. No sub-specialty. 

Q. Is that a diagnosis that you personally make in the office, in the 

office setting? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is there anything about the fact that you’re a trained physician in — 

an internal medicine trained physician, given that this is a medical 

negligence case, before you’ve heard really any of the facts about the 

case, just a little bit that would make you even slightly lean one way 

or the other in favor of the patient or in favor of Dr. Mucci? 

A. The initial, when I heard it was malpractice, medical malpractice, I 

guess — I guess my initial reaction would be to sympathize with the 

physician. 

Q. That’s very fair. That’s a natural reaction, is to — is to feel 

sympathy. Now, you’re going to hear from the Judge later that 

sympathy isn’t part of your job. That’s that natural, human 

emotion, but you’re supposed to set aside your sympathies for either 

the Plaintiff or the Defendant in the case. Do you feel that this, 

because of the facts — specific facts of this case, and the fact that 
it’s a medical negligence case, do you feel that it would be hard for 

you to be totally impartial to both sides, given that you are a 

physician, you have knowledge about this — you do have knowledge 

about the facts of this case? Do you feel that maybe this would be a 

hard case for you to sit on and be totally fair and impartial to both 

sides? 

A. I think it would be hard. I would try. I would certainly try. 

Q. Do you think maybe there’s probably a better case out there for you 

in your experience to sit on than this case? 

A. Probably. 

* * * 

Q. I’m going to ask you [juror No. 3] because you are a practicing 

physician. Specifically, when it comes to medical, legal cases, just 

like this one is, do you have a sense of are most of them legitimate, 

some not legitimate? How do you lean? 

A. I say — I say most are, some aren’t. I guess you always hear about — 

people always talk about the ones that aren’t legitimate that tend to come up 

to court. Really most are legitimate. 

* * * 

Q. I got to ask the same question of you, [juror No. 3]. If you went 

back to work, and, obviously, people are going to ask you, what kind 

of case did you sit on? And you explained to them that you found in 

favor of a patient in that medical negligence case, is that going to be 

uncomfortable for you, difficult for you? 

A. No. 

* * * 

Q. [Juror No. 3], would you file a medical negligence claim against a 

fellow, a fellow physician if you thought that the doctor was 

negligent? 

[Dr. Mucci’s counsel objected, and the trial court overruled the objection.] 
Q. No. 

A. Why not? 

Q. It’s just me. 

{¶12} After the Cordovas’ counsel completed his questioning, Dr. Mucci’s counsel 

began questioning the prospective jurors and posed the following question: 

The Judge will give you the law in Ohio, and it states that physicians are 

required to follow the standard of care, okay? 

You will hear testimony from Dr. Mucci, and you’ll hear testimony from 

other physicians. 

Will all of you hold them to that burden of proving to you that Dr. Mucci 

breached the standard of care by demonstrating it through credible experts? 

 Will everybody hold them to that standard if that’s what the law says? 

None of the prospective jurors, including juror No. 3, responded that he or she could not 

do so. Dr. Mucci’s counsel continued with her voir dire questioning of juror No. 3, and 

the trial court interjected with a question: 

[Counsel]: [A]re you comfortable — nobody is going to ask you to 

pretend that you’re not a doctor, but can you take the 

testimony that comes from the witness stand and use that to 

make your decision to be fair to both sides versus what you 

already know from your training? 

[Juror]: Yes. 

[Court]: Can you do that? You heard already from what was read in 

the complaint and what Mr. Scott said is that the claim is 

going to be antibiotics should have been given. And you’re 

going to hear testimony that antibiotics should not have been 

given from experts and from Dr. Mucci. Just what you know 

from your practice, do you say to yourself that has to be 

wrong because I’ve heard of people doing that with 
diverticulitis? Is anybody saying that as I’m standing here 

right now? Because we know that you think just based on 

your own experience or your own care of patients? You feel 

like that, [juror No. 3]? 

[Juror]: No. 

{¶13} Juror No. 3 also revealed that her sister and parents were internal medicine 

physicians. Dr. Mucci’s counsel then asked juror No. 3: 

Obviously you can set aside your own personal knowledge. You can refrain 

from talking about this if you’re on the jury and use what you hear in this 

witness stand to make your decision, right? Fair enough? 

From the record, there is no indication that juror No. 3 responded that she 

could not do so. 

{¶14} After all of this colloquy, at sidebar, the Cordovas challenged juror No. 3 for 

cause: 

[Counsel]: I would come here and make [a] challenge for cause on [juror 

No. 3]. 

[Court]: I’ll deny it. 

[Counsel]: The reason for the challenge for cause is that [juror No. 3] 

indicated in the questioning that she would lean — she leans 

in favor of the health care provider [Dr. Mucci] in this case 

based upon nothing more than the fact that she knows this is a 

medical negligence case, and prior to hearing any of the 

evidence, or testimony, and she also testified that she herself 

would not pursue the medical negligence case against a fellow 

colleague even if she believed that she had good grounds to 

do so. 

[Court]: I’ll deny it. 

{¶15} After the trial court denied their challenge for cause, the Cordovas used their 

first peremptory challenge to remove juror No. 3. The Cordovas used their next 
peremptory challenge to remove juror No. 6, the infectious disease physician. The 

Cordovas used their final peremptory challenge to remove the new juror No. 6, a school 

teacher whose husband was a pediatrician and whose daughter-in-law was a pathologist. 

{¶16} The trial proceeded, and the jury returned a unanimous verdict in favor of 

the defense. 

{¶17} It is from the trial court’s denial to excuse juror No. 3 for cause that the 

Cordovas appeal. Their sole assignment of error is as follows: 

The trial court impermissibly refused to excuse a juror who should have 

been dismissed for cause. 

II. Analysis 

A. Standard of Review

{¶18} The Cordovas rely on R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) and 2313.17(D). They argue 

that the standard of review for a principal challenge to a juror for cause under R.C. 

2313.17(B)(9) is whether the “weight of the evidence presented to the court supports its 

determination that the challenge has or has not been proven.” The Cordovas concede, 

however, that an abuse of discretion standard applies when reviewing a challenge to a 

juror for cause under R.C. 2313.17(D). 

{¶19} Dr. Mucci argues that an abuse of discretion standard applies when we 

review a challenge to a juror for cause under either R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) or 2313.17(D). 

{¶20} This court, along with others, has held that a ruling on a challenge to a juror 

for cause, pursuant to R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) or 2313.17(D), will not be overturned on 

appeal unless it appears that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Dye, 8th Dist. 
Cuyahoga No. 103907, 2016-Ohio-8044, ¶ 24; see also Giusti v. Felten, 9th Dist. Summit 

Nos. 26611 and 26695, 2014-Ohio-3115 (challenges to jurors under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) 

and 2313.17(D) will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion); Brown v. 

Martin, 5th Dist. Fairfield No. 14-CA-31, 2015-Ohio-503 (the trial court did not abuse its 

discretion when it denied a challenge for cause under R.C. 2323.17(B)(9)); Westfall v. 

Aultman Hosp., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00223, 2017-Ohio-1250 (no abuse of 

discretion for trial court’s denial of challenge for cause under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9)); State 

v. Kuck, 2d Dist. Darke No. 2015-CA-13, 2016-Ohio-8512 (abuse of discretion standard 

used in determining whether a jury should have been excused for cause under R.C. 

2313.17(B)(9)). 

{¶21} “Abuse of discretion” has been defined as an attitude that is unreasonable, 

arbitrary, or unconscionable. In re C.K., 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 25728, 

2013-Ohio-4513, ¶ 13, citing Huffman v. Hair Surgeon, Inc., 19 Ohio St.3d 83, 482 

N.E.2d 1248 (1985). To find that a trial court abused its discretion, “the result must be 

so palpably and grossly violative of fact or logic that it evidences not the exercise of will 

but the perversity of will, not the exercise of judgment but the defiance of judgment, not 

the exercise of reason but instead passion or bias.” Nakoff v. Fairview Gen. Hosp., 75 

Ohio St.3d 254, 256, 662 N.E.2d 1 (1996). 

{¶22} We will review the Cordovas’ sole assignment of error using an abuse of 

discretion standard. 

B. R.C. 2313.17(B)(9)
{¶23} The Cordovas first argue that R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) is a principal challenge 

that prohibits any attempt to rehabilitate by either court or counsel and that juror No. 3’s 

answers to the voir dire questions required the trial court to automatically excuse her for 

cause. According to the Cordovas, “because she was a physician and this was a medical 

malpractice case brought against a physician,” juror No. 3 could not be fair and impartial. 

 And the Cordovas assert that “Juror No. Three clearly indicated that she would not be 

able to follow the law when she honestly and frankly stated that she could not set her own 

medical knowledge aside and rely solely on the evidence presented.” 

{¶24} At trial, however, when the Cordovas asked the trial court to excuse juror 

No. 3 for cause, they did not argue that juror No. 3 would not follow the law.2

 Rather, 

their argument focused on the fact that juror No. 3 was an internal medicine physician 

who “lean[ed] in favor” of the defense because “she herself would not pursue the medical 

negligence case against a fellow colleague even if she believed she had good grounds to 

do so.” 

{¶25} Dr. Mucci argues that the Cordovas failed to prove that juror No. 3 could 

not be fair and impartial and could not follow the law. According to Dr. Mucci, juror 

No. 3 stated several times that she could be fair and impartial in this matter; that she 

 2

 Generally speaking, “a court of appeals cannot consider an issue for the first time without 

the trial court having had an opportunity to address the issue.” State v. Peagler, 76 Ohio St.3d 496, 

501, 668 N.E.2d 489 (1996). Because the Cordovas’ appeal centers around the for-cause challenge 

to juror No. 3, we will consider the argument raised now about the juror’s alleged inability to the 

follow the law. We do note, however, that the trial court did not have this precise argument before it 

when deciding to deny the Cordovas’ challenge for cause. 
“could set aside prejudice and fairly weigh the opinions of the experts, despite her 

background as a physician”; and that she “unequivocally stated that she would be 

comfortable setting her medical training aside, to take the testimony that comes from the 

witness stand, and to use that to make her decision.” 

{¶26} R.C. 2313.17(B) sets forth nine “good causes for challenge to any person 

called as a juror.” One of the nine “good causes” is “[t]hat the person discloses by the 

person’s answers that the person cannot be fair and impartial or will not follow the law as 

given to the person by the court.” R.C. 2313.17(B)(9). R.C. 2313.17(C) specifically 

states that “[e]ach challenge listed in division (B) of this section shall be considered as a 

principal challenge, and its validity tried by the court.” We agree with the Cordovas 

that, based on the precise language of R.C. 2313.17(C), a challenge under R.C. 

2313.17(B)(9) is a principal challenge. 

{¶27} Under Ohio law, if a principal challenge is found valid, “the court [must] 

dismiss the prospective juror, [and may] not rehabilitate or exercise discretion to seat the 

prospective juror upon the prospective juror’s pledge of fairness[.]” State v. Swift, 9th 

Dist. Summit No. 27084, 2014-Ohio-4041, ¶ 4, citing Hall v. Banc One Mgt. Corp., 114 

Ohio St.3d 484, 2007-Ohio-4640, 873 N.E.2d 290. “[W]here a party establishes the 

existence of facts supporting a principal challenge, this finding ‘result[s] in automatic 

disqualification,’ and no rehabilitation of the potential juror can occur.” Hall at ¶ 29. 

{¶28} In Westfield v. Aultman Hosp., 5th Dist. Stark No. 2015CA00223, 

2017-Ohio-1250, a medical malpractice case, the Fifth District analyzed a challenge of a 
juror for cause under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9). The plaintiff in Westfield argued that the trial 

court committed prejudicial error because it denied a challenge for cause when a 

prospective juror stated that he could not hold himself to the standard instructed by the 

trial court and that he would hold the plaintiff to a higher standard. After the juror’s 

initial answer, however, the trial court asked another question about the standard of proof 

and the juror responded, “I would be uncomfortable with it, but I would follow the law, 

yes.” The trial court denied the plaintiff’s challenge for cause. 

{¶29} In affirming the trial court, the Fifth District held that “[a]s long as a trial 

court is satisfied, following additional questioning of a prospective juror, that the juror 

can be fair and impartial and follow the law as instructed, the court need not remove that 

juror for cause.” Id. at ¶ 57, citing Giusti, 9th Dist. Summit Nos. 26611 and 26695, 

2014-Ohio-3115; see also State v. Dye, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103907, 2016-Ohio-8044 

(trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to remove a juror for cause under R.C. 

2313.17(B)(9) even though her initial statements cast some doubt on her impartiality). 

{¶30} In order to fully determine the first argument related to the Cordovas’ 

assignment of error, we must analyze whether the Cordovas established the existence of 

facts supporting a valid principal challenge under R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) that juror No. 3 

would not be fair and impartial or would not follow the law as given by the court, which 

would have required her automatic disqualification as a juror. 

{¶31} At the outset of the voir dire questioning, juror No. 3 replied “no” to the trial 

court’s question, “Any reason you feel you can’t be fair and impartial to anybody here?” 
As an internal medicine physician, juror No. 3 explained that she had experience in 

diagnosing and treating diverticulitis and irritable bowel syndrome. Although juror No. 

3 stated that she thought it would be hard for her to sit as a juror on this medical 

malpractice case and be totally fair and impartial, she also stated that “[she] would try. 

[She] would certainly try.” 

{¶32} At no time did juror No. 3 state that she could not be fair and impartial to 

either the Cordovas or Dr. Mucci despite being instructed by the trial court to “speak out 

frankly so we may be assured that the jury chosen to try the issues in this case will decide 

them fairly and impartially to both the Plaintiff and Defense.” And juror No. 3 candidly 

admitted that she would not initiate a medical malpractice case against a colleague, but 

she stated that she believed most medical malpractice cases “[were] legitimate” and that 

she would be comfortable returning a verdict in favor of a patient. 

{¶33} During voir dire, the Cordovas’ counsel asked juror No. 3 the following 

question: 

There’s obviously going to be other doctors who are going to come and 

testify with regards to the medical issues in this case. * * * Given that you 

have, obviously, a lot of firsthand experience, training and so forth, are you 

going to be able to set aside your knowledge and listen and rely only on the 

evidence that comes through the records, or through witnesses, who will be 

presented throughout the course of the trial, or is it going to be kind of hard 

to set aside what you actually — what you actually know? 

Juror No. 3 responded, “I don’t think I can set aside my knowledge. It’s my 

knowledge.” 
{¶34} Contrary to the Cordovas’ argument that this answer required her automatic 

dismissal, we do not find that this statement means that juror No. 3 could not follow the 

law as given by the trial court. Juror No. 3 simply stated that she does not “think” that 

she could set aside her medical knowledge. She never said that she could not follow 

the law as given by the trial court. 

{¶35} In 1998, Ohio passed Am.Sub.S.B. No. 69 (“S.B. 69”), which repealed all 

exemptions, including those for elected public officials and attorneys, from jury service. 

With the new law, “no person [was] exempt from” jury service for any reason. S.B. 69. 

The state of Ohio eliminated all exemptions to jury service because of the 

recommendations made to the General Assembly by the Chief Justice of the Ohio 

Supreme Court, Thomas Moyer, in his 1997 address on the state of the judiciary. The 

Chief Justice stated: 

Through the years, statutory exemptions for certain occupations, and even 

those who have reached age 70, have been adopted. They are all persons 

whose knowledge and experience could lend wisdom to a jury. Why do 

we exempt persons who would make good jurors? * * * I cannot think of a 

logical answer to that question. 

To find that juror No. 3’s specialized knowledge required her automatic dismissal would 

contradict the very reason why our law permits the empaneling of “good jurors” — those 

whose knowledge and experience can lend wisdom to the jury. 

{¶36} Moreover, in other questioning, juror No. 3 indicated that she could follow 

the evidence and instructions of the trial court to render a decision, which is precisely 

what the law cited by the Cordovas requires. Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 217, 102 
S.Ct. 940, 71 L.Ed.2d 78 (1982) (due process means a jury capable and willing to decide 

the case solely on the evidence before it). Juror No. 3 specifically told the trial court she 

could follow the burden of proof in the case, she could weigh the testimony of the 

experts, she could test the credibility of the witnesses, and she could set aside any 

prejudices she had in rendering a verdict. 

{¶37} Dr. Mucci’s counsel also asked juror No. 3, “[N]obody is going to ask you 

to pretend that you’re not a doctor, but can you take the testimony that comes from the 

witness stand and use that to make your decision to be fair to both sides versus what you 

already know from your training?” Juror No. 3 responded, “Yes.” Then, the trial 

court made sure by stating, “Just what you know from your practice, do you say to 

yourself that has to be wrong * * * based on your own experience or your own care of 

patients?” Juror No. 3 responded, “No.” 

{¶38} Although the Cordovas want us to only consider the answers given by 

juror No. 3 to their counsel, we decline to do so. Legal precedent permits our 

consideration of all voir dire answers given by juror No. 3. See Westfield, 5th Dist. 

Stark No. 2015CA00223, 2017-Ohio-1250; Dye, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103907, 

2016-Ohio-8044. 

{¶39} Juror No. 3’s answers to the voir dire questions did not disclose that she 

could not follow the law or that she could not be fair and impartial. Rather, her answers 

proved the opposite and that she would “certainly try” to do so, which is all we can ask of 

jurors. Therefore, we find that the Cordovas failed to establish the existence of facts to 
support a valid principal challenge that juror No. 3 would not be fair and impartial or 

would not follow the law as given by the trial court, which would have required the trial 

court to automatically excuse juror No. 3 for cause. 

C. R.C. 2313.17(D) 

{¶40} The Cordovas’ second and third arguments focus on R.C. 2313.17(D). 

They claim that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to excuse juror No. 3 

pursuant to R.C. 2313.17(D) because juror No. 3’s answers exposed her “bias and 

partiality toward [Dr. Mucci].” The Cordovas also argue that juror No. 3 should have 

been excused for cause because she “was a medical doctor who had specialized 

knowledge and training in the subject matter at issue and who stated she could not set 

aside her own knowledge and rely solely on the evidence presented.” 

{¶41} Dr. Mucci argues that the Cordovas’ challenge under R.C. 2313.17(D) is 

“baseless and irrelevant” because juror No. 3 “unequivocally ensured the court and 

counsel that she could be fair, impartial and unbiased.” According to Dr. Mucci, “there 

is no authority — statutory or otherwise — that require[d] the trial court to dismiss jurors 

for cause solely because they have experience or knowledge regarding the issues 

presented at trial, especially where the prospective juror ensures that such knowledge and 

experience will not affect his or her ability to be fair and impartial.” 

{¶42} R.C. 2313.17(D) provides as follows: 

In addition to the causes listed in division (B) of this section, any petit juror 

may be challenged on suspicion of prejudice against or partiality for either 

party, or for want of a competent knowledge of the English language, or 

other cause that may render the juror at the time an unsuitable juror. The 
validity of the challenge shall be determined by the court and be sustained if 

the court has any doubt as to the juror being entirely unbiased. 

{¶43} The determination as to whether a juror is biased involves a judgment of 

credibility, the basis of which may not always be apparent from the record on appeal and, 

therefore, a reviewing court will defer to the trial judge who sees and hears the juror. 

State v. Huertas, 51 Ohio St.3d 22, 23, 553 N.E.2d 1058 (1990); see also Berk v. 

Matthews, 53 Ohio St.3d 161, 559 N.E.2d 1301 (1990). 

{¶44} We have already found that juror No. 3 could have been fair and impartial 

and could have followed the law. And contrary to the Cordovas’ argument, we do not 

find any unresolved uncertainty about whether she could have been entirely unbiased. 

After juror No. 3’s initial voir dire answers, Dr. Mucci’s counsel asked questions and the 

trial court asked an additional question of juror No. 3 to ensure she could be fair and 

impartial. The Cordovas could have asked additional questions of juror No. 3 if they 

believed there remained any unresolved uncertainty about whether she could be fair and 

impartial. They chose not to do so. 

{¶45} The Cordovas further complain that the trial court refused to allow juror No. 

3 to answer certain questions about diverticulitis. Specifically, the trial court sustained 

objections when the Cordovas’ counsel questioned juror No. 3 about the “signs, 

symptoms and manner in which you diagnose diverticulitis” and whether there is “a 

difference in the diagnosis of diverticulitis in the office setting as opposed” to the 

emergency department setting. The questions asked by the Cordovas’ counsel were 

aimed at the very issues dispositive of the medical malpractice case. Permitting juror 
No. 3 to answer had the potential of confusing and tainting the views of the other 

prospective jurors about a material fact that should only have been decided by the jury 

based upon the evidence presented at trial. We do not find error in the trial court’s 

refusal to allow juror No. 3 to answer the questions. 

{¶46} The Cordovas’ reliance on Sowers v. Middletown Hosp., 89 Ohio App.3d 

572, 626 N.E.2d 968 (12th Dist.1993), is also misplaced. In Sowers, the plaintiffs filed 

a medical malpractice claim against the defendants as a result of the defendants’ 

negligence during the labor and delivery of the plaintiffs’ son. After a defense verdict, 

the plaintiffs appealed and argued that the trial court made erroneous rulings on 

challenges to jurors for cause. 

{¶47} The Twelfth District affirmed that the trial court properly granted an 

agreed-upon challenge for cause of a nurse who worked in labor and delivery. During 

voir dire, the nurse stated that she would have her own interpretations of the fetal monitor 

strips that would be crucial evidence at the trial. Thus, the Twelfth District held that the 

nurse’s statements evidenced an inability to be impartial during the interpretation of the 

fetal monitor strips by the parties’ experts. The Sowers court, however, refused to adopt 

the plaintiffs’ broad position that all nurses and medical personnel should be excluded as 

jurors in a medical malpractice case because of their “inherent bias” toward physicians 

and hospitals. 

{¶48} We find the facts of Sowers to be distinguishable. The parties did not 

agree that juror No. 3 should be excused for cause. Moreover, juror No. 3 never 
indicated that she had her own interpretation of any evidence crucial to the medical 

malpractice claim or that she would not listen to the expert testimony. On the contrary, 

juror No. 3 assured the trial court and counsel that she could be fair and impartial; that she 

could listen to the experts and weigh their testimony; that she could set aside any 

prejudices; and that she could follow the law by taking the testimony that comes from the 

witness stand and using it to make a decision that was fair to both sides versus what she 

already knew from her medical training. 

{¶49} Given the record before us and giving deference to the trial court who saw 

and heard juror No. 3, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in denying 

the Cordovas’ challenge of juror No. 3 for cause under R.C. 2313.17(D). 

D. New Trial

{¶50} The Cordovas argue that a new trial is necessary because the trial court 

impermissibly forced them to use a peremptory challenge to strike juror No. 3. At oral 

argument, the Cordovas claimed that they were prejudiced because if they would have 

had a remaining peremptory challenge, they would have used it to dismiss juror No. 5 — 

a nurse practitioner with an anesthesiologist husband — who served as the jury 

foreperson. 

{¶51} Given our decision that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying 

the Cordovas’ challenge to remove juror No. 3 for cause under R.C. 2313.19(B)(9) and 

2313.19(D), this argument is moot. We are compelled, however, to comment on the 

issue. 
{¶52} There is nothing in the record before us that suggests that the Cordovas 

asked for more peremptory challenges due to the unique medical professional make-up of 

the prospective jurors. Moreover, the record shows that after the Cordovas used a 

peremptory challenge to excuse juror No. 3, they then excused juror No. 6 — the 

infectious disease physician. With their final peremptory challenge, the Cordovas 

excused new juror No. 6 — a school teacher with a pediatrician husband and 

daughter-in-law pathologist. Thus, the Cordovas had peremptory challenges that they 

could have used to excuse juror No. 5, but they chose not to do so. 

{¶53} Therefore, even if we were to consider the merits of the Cordovas’ 

argument, we would be reluctant to find any prejudice to them. 

III. Conclusion 

{¶54} We find that an abuse of discretion standard of review applies when we 

review a trial court’s denial of a challenge to a juror for cause under R.C. 2313.19(B)(9) 

and 2313.19(D). We also find that a challenge to a juror under R.C. 2313.19(B)(9) is a 

principal challenge. And we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it 

denied the Cordovas’ challenge to dismiss juror No. 3 for cause under R.C. 2313.19(B)(9) 

or 2313.19(D). The Cordovas’ sole assignment of error is overruled, and the judgment 

is affirmed. 

It is ordered that appellee recover from appellants the costs herein taxed. 

The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. 
It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the common 

pleas court to carry this judgment into execution. 

A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of 

the Rules of Appellate Procedure. 

 

MARY J. BOYLE, JUDGE 

KATHLEEN ANN KEOUGH, A.J., and 

EILEEN A. GALLAGHER, J., CONCUR