I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 3 - CA- 0 2 5 9 5 - S CT W AL L AC E WEA T

HER L Y, M

. D. , AN D W EATH ERLY SPORTS M

ED ICI NE & FAM

I LY ORTHOPAEDIC CL I

NIC, P. C.
v. ADI NA W ELK ER AND FORRES T W ELK ER
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 08/ 04/ 2003 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. TOM I E T. GR EEN COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT S : M AR K P . CA RA W AY M E T A S . CO P E L AND ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : KENNET H CHARLES M I LL ER DER EK L. HA LL T HANDI W ADE NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - M EDI CAL M ALP RACTI CE D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E M A N D E D - 11/ 30/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:
B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D R A N D O L P H , JJ. S M I TH, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s cas e comes t o thi s C our ton appeal fr om the C i rcui tC ou rto f Fi r s t J udi ci al D istric t o f H in d s C o u n ty , b y d e fe n d a n ts D r. W a llac e W e a th e rly a n d W e a th e rly S p o rts M edici ne an d F am i l y O rtho paed i cs C l i n ic, P . A . ( her ei naft er “W eat herl y”). T his case i nvol ves a medi cal m al pr act i ce c l ai m agai nstW eather l y i n connec t i on w i th the ca r e and tr eatm entgi ven t o pl ai nt i f f A di na W el ker( her ei naf t er“ M s . W el ker ”) w hen s he f el l dur i ng a v isi t t o W ea therly’s c li n ic. O n Ju ly 28 , 20 0 3 , a j u ry return ed a v erd ictin fav o r of p lai n ti ffs

### Ms. Welker te stif ie d that We atherly left

theroom

about one m inut e a ft er 1 

### adm ini st ering t

he s hot. Howeve r, Weathe rly te stif ie d that hest aye d in t

he e xam inati on room for at least fi v e mi nutes andmade sure Ms. W elker w as no t go ing to h ave anadv erse reactionto th e injectio n. 2 A di na and Forr es tW el ker( her ei naf t er“W el ker ”) i n t he am ountof $530, 000, and j udgm ent
w as ent er ed i n accor dance w i th t hatver di ct . W eather l y appeal s and re ques t s a new tr i al on a ll is s u e s o f l ia b ility a n d d a m a g e s . ¶2 . W e h o ld that the tr ial jud g e ab u sed h er d isc re tio n w h en sh e ad v ised the jury v en ir e of on-go i ng set t l em ent nego t i at i on s bet w een the part i es.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶3. O n Ju ly 1 3 , 2 0 0 0 , W elke r fi led a co m plai nt al l eging m edical neg l i gen ce against W eather l y, w ho i s a boar d cer t i f i ed or thopaedi c sur geon w ho re s i des and pr act i ces i n H i nds C o u n ty, M issi ssipp i, b ase d o n an injury M s. W elke r sustaine d du ri n g a visi t t o W ea therly’s
c l i n i c . On M a y 1 2 , 1 9 9 9 , M s . W e l k e rc a me u n d e rth e c a r e o f W e a th e r l y f

o rth e f i r s tt i me
w hen s he made an of

f i ce vi s i t . She f

i l l ed outan i nt ake f

or m and w as i ni t i al l y i nt ervi ew ed by one of W eather l y’ s s ur gi cal a s s i s t ant s . She made compl ai nt s of hi p pai n and poppi ng and di s cl os ed thats he s uf

f er ed f r om neur al l y m edi cat ed hypot ens i on. W eather l y per f or m ed a phys i cal exami nat i on of M s . W el kerand admi ni s t er ed a s t er oi d i nj ect i on i nt o the bur s a of herhi p. T her e i s s om e di s put e as t o how l on g. W eather l y r emai ned i n the r oom af t ert he i nj ect i on. A f

t erW eather l y l ef

tthe r oom , M s . W el kerf ai nt ed and f

el l t o the f

l oor , caus i ng 1 hert o s uf

f eri nj ur i es w hi ch ar e the s ubj ectof thi s a ct i on. The mat t erpr ocee ded t o tr i al on J u ly 2 1 , 2 0 0 3 .

### 3

¶4 . O n the firstd ay o f trial, th e tria l c o u rt m e t w ith the p arti es in ch am b ers to inq u ir e aboutthe st at us of

s ett l ementnegot i at i ons . T he courti ns truct ed the part i es t o l eave the
courtr oom and di s cus s s ett l ementbef or e a j ury w as s el ect ed. A tthi s poi nt , the veni r e had b e e n c a lled to th e c o u rtro o m . T h e tria l ju d g e th e n re tu rn e d to th e c o u rtro o m to p e rfo rm ro ll cal l of the pane l s , atw hi ch t i m e s he i nf or m ed the pot ent i al j ur or s thats ett l ementnegot i at i ons
w e re tak in g p lac e o u tsid e th e c o u rtro o m a t th a t v e ry m o m e n t. N e ith e r th e p a rties n o r th e ir
a tto rn e y s w e re p re se n t w h e n th e trial ju d g e m a d e th e fo llo w in g sta tem e n t: T h is is a n o th e r p a rt o f th e se lec tio n p ro c e ss . It’s c a lled v o ir d ire . B u t at th is p o in t I’m g o in g to h a v e to p u t y o u -a ll i n re c e ss a g a in . A n d th e re c e ss is beca us e the ca s e that ’ s s chedul ed t o begi n and w e’ r e s uppos ed t o be pi cki ng a j ury f orr i ghtnow , the att orneys and the part i es ar e t al ki ng s ett l ement . T hey m ay nots ett l e, and w e may be her e ats om e poi nt t al ki ng abouta tr i al goi ng f orw ar d. I f

thi s happens as i tdoes i n 90 per centof the cas es t hatar e eve rf i l ed, then w e w on’ tneed you. I f they do notr eac h an agr eement , t hen you w i l l be b a c k h e re a t 1 :0 0 a n d th e ju ry w ill b e p ic k e d
. J ury s el ect i on f

ol l ow ed thataf

t ernoon, and l at ert hateveni ng counse l forW eather l y l earned that th e v en ir e h ad b ee n info rm ed o f an att em p ted s ett lem en t. T h e n ex t m o rnin g , b efo re openi ng s t at ement s , def ens e couns el m ade a m ot i on f ora mi s tr i al and the s el ect i on of a new j ury bas ed on the tr i al court ’ s vi ol at i on of R ul e 408 of t he M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E vi dence
. T h a t m o tio n w a s d e n ie d
. ¶5. T he j ury sub sequen t l y returned a ve r di cti n f avorof M s . W el keri n the amount of $500, 000 and i n f

avorof For r es tW el ker i n the amountof $30, 000. J udgm entw as ent er ed i n acc or dance w i th the ver di ct . O n A ugus t14, 2003, W eat herl y m oved f orj udgm ent notw i ths t andi ng the ver di ctor , i n the al t ernat i ve, f ora new tr i al
. O n O ct ober , 2, 2003, t he

### 4

tr i al courti s s ued an or derdenyi ng the post
- tr i al m ot i ons , fr om w hi ch W eather l y fi l ed a not i ce o f a p p e a l. O n a p p e a l, W e a th e rly p re se n ts th e fo llo w in g iss u e s fo r re v iew : I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d by i nf or m i ng t he ve ni r e of

on- go i ng set tl em en t nego ti ati on s. I I . W het her t he t ri al c ourt e rre d i n i t s appl i cat i on of t he U ni t ed St at es Sup rem e C ourt deci s i on of B at s on v. K entucky to D r. W ea th er ly’s p e r e m p to r y c h a lle n g e s . I I I . W het her t he t ri al c ourt e rre d by denyi ng a c ont i nuan ce of t he t ri al dat e af t er Pl ai nt i f

f s di s cl os ed cri t i cal m edi cal rec ords s even days p r io r to tr ia l. I V . W het her t he t ri al court erred b y ref usi ng t o i nst ruct t he j ury on D r. W eat herl y’ s cl ai m of cont ri butor y negl i gence. V . W het her t he t ri al c ourt e rre d by gi vi ng Jury Ins t ruct i on 12, w hi ch w as perem pt ory i n nature , and w hi ch di d not s t at e t he s t andard of c ar e t o be appl i e d t o D r . W e at he r l y’ s c ar e a nd t r e at m e nt o f A di na W e lk e r . B ecause the det erm i nati on of the fi rs ti ssue con trol s, w e need no tadd res s the o ther i ssues. DI S CU S S I ON I . W he t he r t he t r i alc our t e r r e d by i nf or m i ng t he ve ni r e of

on- go i ng set tl em en t nego ti ati on s. ¶6. W eather l y ass ert s on appea l t hatt he t r i al cour ter r ed by i nf or m i ng t he veni r e of

ongoi ng s ett l ementnegot i at i ons . W eather l y ar gues t hatR ul e 408 of the M i s s i s s i ppi R ul es of E v id e n c e d isa llo w s th e m e n tio n in g o f se ttl e m e n t n e g o tiatio n s a t an y tim e d u rin g trial, w ith
one exc ept i on poi nt ed outi n Sm ith v. Pay ne , w her e the f actof s ett l ementw as us ed f

ort he pu rpose of exp l ai ning the absen ce of a sett l i ng defendan tattri al
. 83 9 S o. 2d 4 82 , 48 7 (M i ss. 2002)
. W i th r egar d t o di s cl os i ng the amount of s ett l ement , the C our ts t at ed thatthe pr obat i ve
v a lu e , if a n y , o f th e se ttl e m e n t am o u n t is su b sta n tially o u tw e ig h e d b y th e d a n g e r o f u n fa ir

### 5

pr ej udi ce; how ever , thi s cas e does notoff erany gui dance w i th re gar d t o t he f actual s i tuat i on in th e p re s e n t c a s e . I

d. W e a th e rly cite s c a se s fro m o th e r ju risd ictio n s, w h ich fo u n d tha t R u le 4 0 8 p ro h ib its th e tr ia l ju d g e fr o m d is c u s s in g s e ttle m e n t n e g o tia tio n s w ith th e ju ry . See inf ra K ennon v. Sli

ps tr eam er, I

nc . , 7 9 4 F .2 d 1 0 6 7 , 1 0 7 1 (5 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ); Fahr ba c h v. D iam ond Sham r oc k, I

nc . , 928 P. 2d 269, 274 ( N . M . 1996)
. Rel yi ng on G re e n v . S ta te , 97 M i s s . 834, 53 So. 415, 41 6 ( 19 10 ) , W e ather l y s ubm i t s thatthe pr os cr i pt i on agai ns tdi s cus s i ng s ett l ement negot i at i ons f

ound i n Rul e 408 a ppl i es w i th e ven gr eat erf or ce t o the tr i al courtbeca us e of the i m por t ance thatj ur or s pl ace on the j udge. ¶ 7 . R u le 4 0 8 p ro v id e s th a t: E vi dence of

( 1) f urni s hi ng orof

f er i ng orpr om i s i ng t o f

urni s h, or( 2) acc ept i ng orof f er i ng or pr om i s i ng t o acc ept , a val uabl e cons i der at i on i n compromi s i ng o r a ttem p tin g to co m p ro m ise a c laim w h ich w a s d isp u ted a s to e ith e r v a lid ity oramount , i s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove l i abi l i ty f orori nval i di ty of

the cl ai m or i t s am ou nt. E vidence o f condu cto r statem ents m ade in com prom i se n e g o tia tio n s is lik e w is e n o t a d m is s ib le
. M i s s . R . E vi d. 408. A l though evi dence of s ett l ementi s notadmi s s i bl e t o pr ove l i abi l i ty or the i nval i di ty of

a cl ai m underR ul e 408, “thi s rul e al s o does notre qui r e excl us i on w hen the evidence is off

ered f or another purpose , such as provi ng bias or prej ud i ce of a w i t ness, negat i vi ng a cont ent i on o f undue del ay, orpr ovi ng an ef f or tt o obs tructa cr i m i nal i nves t i gat i on orpr os ecut i on. ” I d. ¶8 . T h ere are n o M issi ssipp i ca ses d ir ec tl y o n p o int w ith reg ard to w h ethe r a tri al co u rt ’s d isc lo su re o f o n -g o in g se ttl e m e n t n e g o tiatio n s b e tw e e n p a rties a c tiv e ly in v o lv e d in a trial to the veni r e vi ol at es R ul e 408; how everotherj ur i s di ct i ons pr ovi de gui dance
. I n Fahrbac h , the Supr eme C our tof

N ew M exi co s t at ed thatan ana l ogous versi on o f Rul e 408 appl i es

### 6

e q u a lly to “ c o m m e n ts o f th e co u rt o r o f co u n se l m a d e in a rg u m e n t t o jur y o r in v o ir d ir e .” 928 P. 2d at274. T he Fi fth C i rcui th as hel d thatFeder al R ul e 408 bar s the admi s s i on of evi dence of

s ett l ementunl es s i ti s admi s s i bl e f ora purpos e otherthan " t o pr ove l i abi l i ty f or ori nval i di ty of

the cl ai m ori t s amount ” K ennon , 7 9 4 F . 2 d at 10 6 9 . S im il ar to this C o u rt ’s
r eas oni ng i n Sm ith , the F ifth C irc u it h e ld th a t w h ile it i s re v e rsib le e rro r fo r a trial c o u rt to
re v e a l th e a m o u n t o f se ttl e m e n t, rev e a lin g th e fa c t o f se ttl e m e n t is p e rm iss ib le w h e n it expl ai ns the abs ence of s ett l i ng def

endant s w ho w er e pr evi ous l y i n courtbeca us e i ts erves th e p u rp o s e o f r e d u c in g ju ry c o n fu s io n . I d. at1070. H ow ever , unl i ke Sm ith and K ennon , m enti on i ng the set t l em ent i n thi s case w as notf orthe purpos e of

expl ai ni ng the abs ence of
a s ett l i ng co- def

endant ; i n f

act , ther e w as no purpose i n di s cl os i ng the part i es ’ s ett l ement
ne go t i a t i on s a nd i n o urvi e w t o d o s o was pr e j ud i c i a l e rr or . W e f

i nd tha tthe di s c l os ur e of
s ett l ementnegot i at i ons i n t hi s cas e cl ear l y fa l l s out s i de of t he perm i s s i bl e purpos es s etout in R u le 4 0 8 . T h e tria l c o u rt re a so n a b ly c o u ld h a v e a n d s h o u ld h a v e fo u n d a m o re a p p ro p ria te
w a y o f d e a lin g w ith th e d e lay w ith o u t dis c lo sin g to th e v e n ire th a t th e p a rties w e re try in g to
s e ttle th e c a s e , w h ic h im p lie s re s p o n s ib ility fo r t h e in ju ry . ¶ 9 . O n e a u th o rity p ro v id e s:

A s a g en era l ru le, if a tr ial jud g e re fers at all to the su b ject of a compromi s e, he mustdo s o i n s uch a f ashi on t hatno party m ay compl ai n of bi as , hos t i l i ty, ordur es s , ora pre det erm i ned r es ul t . N orm ay any of the above be m ade appar entt o a j ury. Thus, br oadl y, i thas been r egar ded as pr ej udi ci al e rro r fo r a trial ju d g e to d e m o n stra te h o stility in h is re m a rk s to a p a rty , o r to th e ju ry , o r to su g g e st th a t th e p a rty m ig h t b e v isited w ith a n a d v e rse re su lt s h o u ld h e fa il to s e ttle , e s p e c ia lly if th e ju ry is a w a re o f s u c h a ttitu d e . D . L . S p illm a n , J r., A n n o ta tio n , P ro p rie ty a n d

P re ju d icia l E

ffec t o f Su g g e stio n o r C o m m e n ts b y a J u d g e a s to C o m

p r o m is e o rS e ttle m e n t o f C iv il C a s e , 6 A . L . R . 3d 1457, 1460

### 7

(1966 )( foot no t e om i t t ed). W el ker em ph asi zes that “m ere ly t o ref er t o co m prom i se as a g e n e ra lly d e sira b le r e so lu tio n o r to p o in t o u t t h a t c o m p ro m ise is a tec h n iq u e a v a ilab le to l i t i gant s , how everha s notbe en r egar ded as err oneous . ” Id . H o w e v e r, W e lk e r fa ils to
re c o g n ize th a t th e ju d g e in th is c a se d id n o t m e re ly re fe r to c o m p ro m ise a s a d e sira b le
r es ol ut i on, butactual l y i nf or m ed t he veni r e thatthe part i es , i n the ca s e thatthey w er e about t o cons i der , w er e enga ged i n s ett l ementnegot i at i ons atthe very m om entthatthey s ati n t he
courtr oom a w ai t i ng j ury s el ect i on. W hen the j ur or s r eturned f orvoi rdi r e f

ol l ow i ng the tr i al
court ’ s s t at ement , i tw as obvi ous thatthe ca s e di d nots ett l e. Shor t l y af t er , couns el f

or W elke r t o ld the v en ir e tha t th e e v iden ce w o u ld sh o w tha t M s. W elke r’s actu al da m ag es w ere $ 4 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0 . T h e jur y rea so n a b ly co u ld h a v e co n c lu d e d tha t W e a th e rly h a d s e rio u sly
cons i der ed a mul t i
- m i l l i on dol l ardemand i n the morni ng neg oti at i ons , w hi ch coul d have i nadvert ent l y r es ul t ed i n pr ej udi ce. T here f or e, the tr i al court ’ s r ef er ence t o the s ett l ement
w as notdone “i n s uch a f as hi on thatno party may compl ai n of bi as , hos t i l i ty, ordur es s , or a p re d e te rm in e d re s u lt.” I d. ¶10. E ven m or e cr i t i cal , c ons i der i ng w hatoc curr ed i n the cas e atbar , i n G r een , this C o u rt
s t at ed thatj ur or s ar e very sus cept i bl e t o t he i nf l uence of the j udge, and thus a j udge “c annot b e to o c a re fu l an d g u a rd e d in lan g u a g e a n d c o n d u c t in th e p re se n c e o f th e ju ry to a v o id p rejud ice to e ith er p arty.” 5 3 S o . at 41 6 . T h e C o u rtfurthe r st ated that “ a re v iew in g co u rt
w i l l notst op t o i nqui r e w hethert he j ury w as actual l y i nf l uence d by the conduc tof the j udge. A l l the author i t i es hol d t hati f they w er e expos ed t o i m pr operi nf l uence s , w hi ch mi ghthave pr oduced the ver di ct , the pr es um pt i on of l aw i s agai ns ti t s pur i ty; and t es t i m ony w i l l notbe hear d t o r ebutthi s pr es um pt i on. ” I d. T her ef

or e, w hetherthe j ury w as a ctual l y pr ej udi ced

### 8

ori nf l uence d by the s t a t e menti s no tf orthe Cour tt o d e c i de ; r a the r , the mer e f a c ttha tt he
s ta te m e n t w a s m a d e to th e ju ry c re a te s a c o n c lu s iv e p re s u m p tio n o f s u c h p re ju d ic e . W e cont i nue t o adher e t o G r een . W e not e thatthe tr i al j udge egr egi ous l y advi s ed the j ury that “90 per centof

the cas es thata r e everf i l ed” [ s ett l e] . T hi s s t at ementonl y f ur therhi ghl i ght ed th e p re ju d ice . T a k in g in to c o n sid e ra tio n th e im p o rta n c e p lac e d o n tri a l j u d g e s a n d th e ir ro le i n saf eguar di ng i m part i al i ty, w e f i nd thatthe tr i al courtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on by i nf or m i ng the veni r e of

l as tm i nut e, on- goi ng s ett l ementnegot i at i ons t aki ng pl ace on the f i r s tday of trial. CO NC L US I ON ¶1 1 . W e fi n d tha t th e tr ial c o u rtc o m m itted rev ersible erro r w h en itin fo rm e d the v en ir e of on- goi ng s ett l ementnegot i at i ons betw een the part i es . A ccor di ngl y, w e r ever s e the tr i al
c o u rt ’s ju d g m e n t a n d re m a n d th is c a s e fo r a n e w tr ia l o n a ll is s u e s . ¶12. RE VE RS ED AND RE M ANDE D. W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND RAN DO LPH, J J . , CO NCU R. DI AZ , J . , DI SS ENTS W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI T T E N O P I NI ON . GR AV E S , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .