Court Opinion

ID: 9928371
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-31 17:04:36.376082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:46:10.431686
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                              Jan 31 2024, 8:30 am

                                                                                   CLERK
                                                                              Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                                 Court of Appeals
                                                                                   and Tax Court

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT                                     ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joseph N. Williams                                         David G. Field
Williams & Piatt, LLC                                      Gaius G. Webb
Indianapolis, Indiana                                      Schultz & Pogue, LLP
                                                           Indianapolis, Indiana

                                            IN THE
    COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Amanda Ping,                                               January 31, 2024
Appellant-Plaintiff                                        Court of Appeals Case No.
                                                           23A-CT-251
        v.                                                 Appeal from the Marion Superior
                                                           Court
Margaret Inman, M.D.,                                      The Honorable Kurt M. Eisgruber,
Appellee-Defendant.                                        Judge
                                                           Trial Court Cause No.
                                                           49D06-2006-CT-20070

                                     Opinion by Judge Pyle

                              Judges Vaidik and Tavitas concur.

Pyle, Judge.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024                          Page 1 of 13
      Statement of the Case
[1]   In this medical malpractice case, Amanda Ping (“Ping”) appeals following a

      jury verdict in favor of Margaret Inman, M.D. (“Dr. Inman”). Ping challenges

      the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error based on juror misconduct.

      Ping argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request

      for a new trial or an evidentiary hearing on her juror misconduct claim.

      Concluding that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her request

      for an evidentiary hearing, we reverse and remand with instructions to hold an

      evidentiary hearing on the issue of juror misconduct.

[2]   We reverse and remand with instructions.

      Issue
              Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Ping’s
              motion to correct error based on juror misconduct.

      Facts
[3]   Ping was a patient of Dr. Inman, and Dr. Inman performed an exploratory

      laparoscopy on Ping. In 2017, Ping filed a proposed medical malpractice

      complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance pursuant to the Indiana

      Medical Malpractice Act. In her complaint, Ping alleged that Dr. Inman had

      committed medical malpractice when Dr. Inman had sewn Ping’s vaginal cuff

      to her bladder during her exploratory laparoscopy. In 2020, a medical review

      panel found no medical malpractice, and Ping filed her suit with the trial court.

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024       Page 2 of 13
[4]   In November 2022, the trial court held a jury trial. Ping presented four experts

      to testify during her case. These experts were Aaron Ludwig, M.D. (“Dr.

      Ludwig”), Mark Kappelman, M.D. (“Dr. Kappelman”), Samuel Feinberg,

      M.D. (“Dr. Feinberg”), and Maret Cline, M.D. (“Dr. Cline”). Dr. Inman

      presented two experts to testify in her defense, Jocelyn Logan, M.D. (“Dr.

      Logan”) and William Cheadle, M.D. (“Dr. Cheadle”).

[5]   During voir dire, the trial court read the names of the expert witnesses for both

      the plaintiff and the defendant. While reading the names, the following

      exchange occurred between Juror 11 (“Juror 11”) and the trial court:

              THE COURT: . . . Does anyone recognize any of those names?
              You do? And that –

              [Juror 11]: Aaron Ludwig.

              THE COURT: You recognize?

              [Juror 11]: Dr. Aaron Ludwig.

              THE COURT: Dr. Aaron Ludwig. And I’m sorry, your name?

              [Juror 11]: [C.B.]

              THE COURT: [C.B.] Okay.

              [Juror 11]: And who was the first [name]? There was a third
              person after him, too?

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024       Page 3 of 13
              THE COURT: There was another name you –

              [Juror 11]: Yeah. Right after Dr. Aaron Ludwig?

              THE COURT: Dr. Kappelman?

              [Juror 11]: No.

              THE COURT: Dr. Fineberg?

              [Juror 11]: No.

              THE COURT: Dr. Maret Cline?

              [Juror 11]: Yes.

              THE COURT: You know her too?

              [Juror 11]: Know of her, yes.

      (Tr. Vol. 2 at 17-18). Juror 11 did not acknowledge that she recognized Dr.

      Cheadle.

[6]   Later during voir dire, the prospective jurors were asked about having any

      background in the medical field. Juror 11 explained that she worked as a

      medical device vendor. Juror 11 further explained that she worked closely with

      “nurses, physicians, mainly in breast surgery and breast oncology.” (Tr. Vol. 2

      at 25). After she disclosed this information, the following exchange occurred

      between Ping’s counsel and Juror 11:

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024     Page 4 of 13
              [Ping’s Counsel]: Thank you. So I take it – do you actually go in
              and meet with doctors and nurses, [and] both sell and then also
              train them on how to use the equipment?

              [Juror 11]: Correct.

              [Ping’s Counsel]: Okay. So I want to ask you the same question
              I asked the gentleman upfront, brutal honesty, knowing that
              when this case is over you’ve got your job to do, which is interact
              with all sorts of doctors and nurses. If the evidence supports a
              verdict against [Inman], what trouble would you have knowing
              that the folks you work with on a day-to-day, who may be
              medical professionals themselves, they ask you about your
              service in this case?

              [Juror 11]: I don’t think I would have an issue with it, it’s
              whatever the information, and – that’s presented, that’s to be
              evaluated, and if it supports it, and my vote is in that favor or
              against I would stick to it.

      (Tr. Vol. 2 at 25).

[7]   Juror 11, along with five other jurors and an alternate, were selected by the

      parties, and the trial court gave preliminary instructions to the jury. During

      opening statements, Dr. Inman’s counsel talked about Dr. Cheadle’s upcoming

      testimony. Juror 11 did not mention her familiarity with Dr. Cheadle.

[8]   When Ping’s counsel called Dr. Cline as her first witness, the alternate juror

      (“Alternate Juror”) recognized the expert witness and immediately notified the

      trial court. The trial court sent the jury out of the courtroom and questioned the

      Alternate Juror. During this questioning, the Alternate Juror revealed that her

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024          Page 5 of 13
      “brain [had not been] fully with [her]” when the trial court had said Dr. Cline’s

      name during voir dire. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 112). The Alternate Juror told the trial

      court that Dr. Cline had been one of her obstetrician/gynecologists during her

      pregnancy and that she had seen Dr. Cline two or three times. The trial court

      and the Alternate Juror had the following exchange:

              THE COURT: Would your experience with Dr. Cline impact
              your ability to be objective in this case?

              [Alternate Juror]: I don’t think so.

              THE COURT: So, and you do understand that and experience
              you had with Dr. Cline is separate and distinct –

              [Alternate Juror]: Yeah.

              THE COURT: – from the events here? You understand that?

              [Alternate Juror]: Yes.

      (Tr. Vol. 2 at 115). The trial court gave both Ping’s and Dr. Inman’s counsels

      the opportunity to question the Alternate Juror before sending her back to the

      jury room. Both Ping’s and Dr. Inman’s counsels allowed the Alternate Juror

      to remain on the jury as an alternate.

[9]   During Ping’s case-in-chief, Dr. Cheadle’s name was mentioned multiple times

      during testimony. Later during the trial, Dr. Inman’s counsel called Dr. Logan,

      who also mentioned Dr. Cheadle in her testimony. Finally, Dr. Inman’s

      Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024      Page 6 of 13
       counsel called Dr. Cheadle to the stand. Dr. Cheadle testified that he believed

       that Dr. Inman had met the standard of care during Ping’s procedure. Juror 11

       did not mention that she recognized Dr. Cheadle at any point during the trial.

[10]   At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury ruled in favor of Dr. Inman. The

       trial court allowed counsel for both sides to informally speak with the jury.

       Ping’s attorneys, Dr. Inman’s attorney, the trial court judge, the six jurors, and

       the Alternate Juror were present in this off-the-record meeting.

[11]   There is no record of this meeting between the attorneys and the jurors.

       However, both of Ping’s attorneys and Dr. Inman’s attorney provided affidavits

       attesting to what had been said. During this post-trial meeting, Ping’s attorney

       Joseph Williams (“Attorney Williams”) alleged that Juror 11 had “volunteered

       that while Dr. Cheadle may be theatrical[,] she was familiar with him through

       her work and knew him to be credible.” (App. Vol. 2 at 35). Ping’s attorney

       Robert Johnson (“Attorney Johnson”) alleged that Juror 11, when asked by the

       trial court about her opinion of the expert witnesses, had answered that “she

       found the testimony of Dr. []Cheadle to weigh more than the plaintiff’s

       experts.” (App. Vol. 2 at 37). Attorney Johnson also alleged that Juror 11 had

       stated that she “had heard of Dr. Cheadle from the University of Louisville

       before” but had “never had a chance to work with him or interact [with him].”

       (App. Vol. 2 at 37). Finally, Attorney Johnson alleged that Juror 11 had said

       that she had been “aware of Dr. Cheadle as a leading expert in the field of

       medicine during her work in hospitals.” (App. Vol. 2 at 37). On the other

       hand, Dr. Inman’s attorney David Field (“Attorney Field”) alleged that Juror

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024        Page 7 of 13
       11 “did not state that she knew Dr. Cheadle to be credible based on her

       familiarity with him through her work.” (App. Vol. 2 at 46).

[12]   After the off-the-record meeting, Ping’s attorneys sent an email to the trial court

       and Attorney Field. In this email, Attorney Williams notified the parties that

       he was researching the juror misconduct issue. Thereafter, Ping filed a motion

       to correct error. In her motion, Ping argued that she was entitled to a new trial

       due to juror misconduct. Ping also argued that she was entitled to an

       evidentiary hearing to determine whether Juror 11 was biased. In support of

       her motion, Ping attached affidavits from Attorney Williams and Attorney

       Johnson that outlined the comments that Juror 11 had allegedly made during

       the off-the-record meeting. Dr. Inman filed a response in opposition to Ping’s

       motion. Dr. Inman attached an affidavit from Attorney Field that challenged

       whether Juror 11 had stated that she found Dr. Cheadle to be more credible due

       to her familiarity with him through her work. The trial court denied Ping’s

       motion to correct error without a hearing.

[13]   Ping now appeals.

       Decision
[14]   Ping argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied her motion

       to correct error based on juror misconduct. We review a trial court’s judgment

       on a motion to correct error for an abuse of discretion. Diehl v. Clemons, 12

       N.E.3d 285, 295-96 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. An abuse of discretion

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024        Page 8 of 13
       occurs when the court’s decision is against the logic and effect of the facts and

       circumstances before it, or if the court misinterprets the law. Id. at 296.

[15]   Ping challenges the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error requesting

       a new trial or an evidentiary hearing based on juror misconduct. Generally,

       “[p]roof that a juror was biased against the [moving party] or lied on voir dire

       entitles the [party] to a new trial.” McDaniels v. State, 375 N.E.2d 228, 232 (Ind.

       Ct. App. 1978). “In such claims of juror misconduct under the Indiana

       Constitution, to warrant a new trial, there must be a showing that the

       misconduct was gross, and that it probably harmed the moving party.” Id. at

       296 (cleaned up).

[16]   “A [party] seeking a hearing on juror misconduct must first present some

       specific, substantial evidence showing a juror was possibly biased.” Lopez v.

       State, 527 N.E.2d 1119, 1130 (Ind. 1988) (citing Berkman v. State, 459 N.E.2d

       44, 46 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984)). See also Diehl, 12 N.E.3d at 296; Thompson v.

       Gerowitz, 944 N.E.2d 1, 8 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), trans. denied. “‘[W]hen [the

       moving party] presents evidence that a juror was possibly biased, and concealed

       this bias on voir dire, the trial court generally must hold an evidentiary hearing

       to determine whether the juror was in fact biased.’” Diehl, 12 N.E.3d at 296

       (quoting Berkman, 459 N.E.2d at 46).

[17]   Here, our review of the record reveals that Juror 11 did not disclose her

       familiarity with Dr. Cheadle until after the jury had rendered its verdict. There

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024        Page 9 of 13
       was no opportunity for Ping, Dr. Inman, or the trial court to probe into Juror

       11’s possible bias due to her familiarity with Dr. Cheadle.

[18]   We find the facts before us to be similar to those of Barnes v. State, 330 N.E.2d

       743 (Ind. 1975). In Barnes, a juror at trial was married to a second cousin to

       one of the prosecutor’s staff who had been slightly involved in the trial. The

       juror did not disclose this relationship during voir dire. The prosecutor’s staff

       member asserted that he had been unaware of the relationship at the time of

       trial and had not seen his cousin for eleven years. Our supreme court noted the

       following:

               Nevertheless, the possibility of bias existed. If the juror lied, his
               misconduct was ground for a new trial. If the answer was
               inaccurate, it prevented the defendant from investigating a
               possible source of future bias in favor of the prosecution. Even
               though the juror may not have been aware at the time of the voir
               dire question of his relationship, if at any time prior to the verdict
               he discovered such a fact; the possibility of bias existed. In such
               a situation the defendant would need to have the opportunity to
               probe the juror and, if he chose, to challenge for cause.

       Id. at 747 (internal citation omitted). Ultimately, our supreme court remanded

       for an evidentiary hearing and instructed the trial court to question the juror

       about whether he was aware of his relationship to the prosecutor’s staff during

       voir dire or any time before the jury’s verdict. Id. If the answer to either of

       these questions was an affirmative, our supreme court instructed the trial court

       to order a new trial. Id.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024          Page 10 of 13
[19]   Furthermore, in Diehl, which dealt with a trial to determine damages after a car

       accident, a juror did not disclose on a juror questionnaire that he had previously

       been a defendant in a case resulting from a vehicular collision. However, the

       case had occurred twelve years prior to his service as a juror and the case had

       been dismissed for a failure to prosecute. Diehl, 12 N.E.3d at 290. Also during

       voir dire, the plaintiff’s attorney spoke favorably of the attorney who had

       represented the plaintiff in the juror’s previous vehicle collision case. Id. at 292.

       Further, during voir dire, the juror stated that:

               there are absolutely times when lawsuits are appropriate such as
               wrongful death, wrongful injury, damage to property, things like
               that, I think, where clearly a law has been broken and the person
               bringing the lawsuit feels that for whatever reason the extent of
               justice they’ve received so far isn’t commensurate to what they
               feel they need.

       Id. (cleaned up). We held that “standing alone, the possibility of bias or

       prejudice is not enough to set aside a jury verdict.” Id. at 297. But, we

       remanded the case back to the trial court and ordered the trial court to hold an

       evidentiary hearing to determine whether the juror was biased or prejudiced.

       Id. at 298.

[20]   Here, the facts before us are similar to those of Barnes and Diehl. Our review of

       the record reveals that Juror 11 did not disclose during voir dire or the entirety

       of the trial that she knew Dr. Cheadle. After the jury entered a verdict in favor

       of Dr. Inman, Juror 11 disclosed that she had been familiar with Dr. Cheadle

       through her work but had never interacted with or worked with him. Further,

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024         Page 11 of 13
       Juror 11 disclosed that “she found the testimony of Dr. []Cheadle to weigh

       more than the plaintiff’s experts.” (App. Vol. 2 at 37). Juror 11’s statements

       are the kind of “specific, substantial evidence” of possible bias that merit an

       evidentiary hearing. Lopez, 527 N.E.2d at 1130. See also Barnes, 330 N.E.2d at

       747 (holding that a juror who did not disclose that he was a second cousin to a

       prosecutor’s staff required an evidentiary hearing to determine if the juror was

       aware of his relationship to the prosecutor’s staff); see also Diehl, 12 N.E.3d at

       298 (holding that a juror in a vehicle collision damages case who had been a

       defendant in a vehicle collision case twelve years prior to his service as a juror

       required an evidentiary hearing to determine bias or prejudice).

[21]   Because the record shows that there was a possibility of juror bias, the trial

       court should have held an evidentiary hearing. See Lopez, 527 N.E.2d at 1130.

       At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court can determine the extent of Juror 11’s

       knowledge of Dr. Cheadle and if it interfered with her ability to render a verdict

       solely on the evidence presented at trial. Much like we had previously held in

       Diehl, “the inquiry that should have occurred during voir dire must now occur

       in a post-trial evidentiary hearing.” Diehl, 12 N.E.3d at 298. Accordingly, we

       remand to the trial court with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to

       determine whether Juror 11 was actually biased or prejudiced against Ping due

       to her familiarity with Dr. Cheadle through her work as a medical device

       vendor.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024         Page 12 of 13
[22]   Reversed and remanded with instructions.

       Vaidik, J., and Tavitas, J., concur.

       Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-CT-251| January 31, 2024   Page 13 of 13