Bell v. Greissman

Patricia Bell sued for medical malpractice for the wrongful death of her daughter and the jury returned a verdict absolving Appellees. We reverse, concluding that the trial court erred in denying a challenge for cause of a juror whose comments raised significant doubt concerning his ability to be impartial. During voir dire, Juror Furey stated that he had worked for five years as an investigator for a law firm specializing in medical malpractice defense. Upon being asked if he brought some related feelings to the court, Furey replied, ""Honestly I do. . . . [As a juror] I would try to keep an open mind, but I am definitely of the opinion that [damage awards] need[s] to be capped and it has gone [sic] detrimental to the healthcare system."" He declared that his beliefs would ""probably"" interfere with his obligations as a juror. In response to Appellees' attempt to rehabilitate him, Furey stated, ""I would do what I believe is the fair thing, yes. . . ."" ""[My decision] would be based on my personal beliefs, correct.""