Court Opinion

ID: 9657035
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:11:24.950421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:40.006227
License: Public Domain

Dissenting opinion by
Justice JOHNSTONE.
Respectfully, I dissent from that portion of the majority opinion that holds that “a current and ongoing physician-patient relationship is such a close relationship where a trial court should presume the possibility of bias.” Op. at 402. The following is the entirety of the voir dire conducted of the two jurors at issue:
JUROR NO. 60
JUROR NO. 60: But he is my doctor.
MR. DECKER: Who is your doctor?
JUROR NO. 60: Dr. Moses.
MR. DECKER: And what number were you?
THE COURT: Let me interject one thing, Mr. Decker, if I may.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury panel, you’re a fairly new panel to the trials and I think I’ve mentioned this to you before, but let me reiterate to you that there are certain cases that all of you will be qualified to sit on, then there are certain cases for something in your background that would disqualify you for one particular case, and if that is the case please let us know early so we can go ahead with the jury selection. So, if there’s something that would cause you to lean one way or the other, just let us know that and then we can go on. With that said, continue, Mr. Decker.
MR. DECKER: Thank you, your Honor.
Number 60, given that Dr. Moses, how long has he been your doctor, sir?
JUROR NO. 60: Ever since he’s been a doctor, I guess.
MR. DECKER: Do you think that that might tend to make you lean just a little bit in his favor, based upon the evidence? If it was an equal question would you lean just because that he’d been your doctor for many years?
JUROR NO. 60: No, sir.
MR. DECKER: You don’t think so? Okay.
JUROR NO. 7
THE COURT: Juror No. 7, let me ask you first if you’ve listened to all the questions that have been asked up to this point? Would you have answered yes to any of those questions?
JUROR NO. 7: Doctor Moses is my doctor.
THE COURT: Dr. Moses is your doctor? Would the fact that Doctor Moses is your doctor cause you to be, and we use the term “bias,” favor the doctor more than the other party? All right. You may continue, Mr. Decker.
*405MR. DECKER: Thank you, your Honor.
The majority attempts to distinguish the ease of Altman v. Allen, Ky., 850 S.W.2d 44 (1992), by noting that the jurors in question here are current patients of a defendant-physician, not former ones. However, the majority overlooks the following analysis by Justice Wintersheimer in Altman:
A careful review of the record in this case indicates there is no basis for a “presumed bias” theory. There is no foundation to establish a per se exclusion and no proof has been presented to establish bias. During the voir dire examination, there was no comprehensive effort to explore or develop the doctor/patient relationships of the three jurors to the extent necessary to determine bias. There is no evidence that the jurors were frequent patients or that they even had a good relationship with the doctors.
Altman, 850 S.W.2d at 45.
The same is true here. There was no attempt by appellant’s counsel to determine whether the relationship between doctor and patient was good or bad. How frequent was the treatment rendered by the doctor to the patient? Did the patient feel the treatment rendered was appropriate and competent?
Moreover, the majority’s attempt to compare the doctor-patient relationship to the attorney-client relationship is questionable in the current state of medical treatment. While a legal client continues to seek out and retain an attorney of his or her choice, the same is not always true of the doctor-patient relationship. Medical choice is often insurance driven. Patients are often compelled to choose a doctor listed on the “provider list” supplied by the insured’s carrier, even the latter not always the first choice of the patient. And there is nothing more harmful to a good doctor-patient relationship than languishing in an overcrowded waiting room of a doctor that the patient was compelled to choose. As the majority states, “one may posit that this relationship is not as strong as in years past....” Op. at 402.
I enthusiastically agree that there are those situations where a juror should be disqualified when the juror has such a close relationship with a party despite the juror’s claim to be free from bias. I also concur with the proposition that the trial courts enjoy wide discretion in ruling upon challenges of prospective jurors for cause. However, I cannot agree that the circumstances before us in this case, namely, the bare fact that a juror is a current patient of a party doctor, is a basis for automatic presumption of bias and a per se disqualification. We never held so in years past when the doctor-patient relationship was at its strongest, and we should not so hold now. Rather, we should leave the question to our seasoned trial judges who know that the magic answer is not a cure for real bias.
GRAVES and WINTERSHEIMER, JJ., join this dissent.