PITTSBURGH — The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has cancelled a new trial in a medical negligence lawsuit by vacating a Superior Court order that tackled a judge's role in jury selection.
In the lawsuit, Mendy Trigg sued the Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh, part of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas, alleging negligence in placing her 4-year-old son in an adult-sized intensive care unit bed following corrective skull surgery. After the boy fell from the bed, the hospital had to perform immediate surgery.
After a jury returned a verdict favoring the hospital, Trigg filed a post-trial motion arguing Judge Ronald Folino erred in denying a challenge to jurors based only reviewing transcripts, not demeanor.
Folino denied that request, saying he wasn’t asked to meet with the challenged parties. Trigg appealed that ruling to the Superior Court, which reversed Folino’s ruling and granted a new trial. That prompted the hospital’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
Justice Debra Todd wrote the opinion, issued April 22, joined by Chief Justice Thomas Saylor and justices Kevin Dougherty and Sallie Mundy. Justice Christine Donahue filed a concurring opinion, joined by Dougherty and Mundy, as well as justices Max Baer and David Wecht. Wecht also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Dougherty.
Though the hospital raised four issues on appeal, the panel said one was dispositive: whether the Superior Court should’ve considered arguments on juror demeanor or if those arguments were waived at the pretrial stage.
“The hospital rejects the proposition that only an original interrogation of a prospective juror in the presence of the trial court is sufficient to assess the prospective juror’s candor,” Todd wrote. “In its view, such a contention discounts the fact that many witnesses at trial, who have their credibility assessed by the fact-finder, have been previously questioned prior to trial via deposition or other means; hence, the hospital propounds that original interrogation is manifestly not the only acceptable way to gauge credibility.”
Trigg’s lawyers said when they flagged alleged bias in a juror related to medical professionals, “implicit in that argument was a commentary on her demeanor, and, thus, they preserved the present issue for appellate review,” Hood wrote.
The panel disagreed, saying there were no pretrial motions objecting to Folino being absent from the jury selection room, as per standard county procedure, while further noting the argument that took place in front of Folino “was predicated on the substance” of that jurors’ answers and not Folino’s inability to assess her demeanor.
Although it vacated the order reversing the trial court’s decision, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the Superior Court to consider Trigg’s remaining arguments regarding the denial of a motion to exclude prospective jurors.