Credit: gpointstudio/Shutterstock.com

A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a new trial is not warranted in a medical malpractice case where a juror disclosed after the verdict was rendered that he had a past interaction with the defendant doctor.

The appeals court found there was no evidence the juror was influenced by his earlier dealing with the doctor, and upheld the trial judge's ruling denying the plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. Although the appeals court was obligated to make its own determination on whether the jury verdict was a miscarriage of justice, that inquiry necessarily relied on the trial judge's feel of the case, the panel said.

And "a new trial is not warranted where a trial judge finds, at a post-verdict hearing, that the omission of the information during jury selection was not potentially prejudicial to the party," the panel said.

After the jury returned a defense verdict, the plaintiffs claimed the juror's failure to disclose his contact with the doctor at the outset of the trial deprived them of an impartial jury and interfered with their ability to exercise peremptory challenges during jury selection.

The issue arose in the suit by Gaetano and Victoria Graziano against general surgeon Jeffrey Strain and his practice, Bergen Laparoscopy & Bariatric Associates. Superior Court Judge Charles Powers denied the Grazianos' motion for a new trial in April 2019. At the end of trial, Juror No. 3 told the other jurors he had visited Strain's home several years earlier to prepare a landscaping bid.

Under questioning by Powers, Juror No. 3 said he worked for a landscaping company and had discussed his jury service with a landscape architect. After the verdict was rendered, Juror No. 3 said, he was reminded by the landscape architect that he had been to Strain's home to prepare a bid as many as eight years earlier. Juror No. 3 never met or spoke to Strain or his wife, and did not get the job.

Judges Douglas Fasciale and Stephanie Ann Mitterhoff of the Appellate Division said a motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of a trial judge, and the decision on a motion for a new trial should not be disturbed unless the judge abused his or her discretion, the panel said, citing a 2001 Appellate Division case.

Fasciale and Mitterhoff said that parties are entitled to jurors who are impartial, unprejudiced and free from improper influences. A motion for a new trial may be granted if a juror omitted or falsified information during voir dire that had the potential to be prejudicial and, if disclosed, would have provided a reasonable basis to exclude the juror, the panel said.

Juror No. 3 represented during voir dire that he could be fair and impartial, the panel said. If anything, not getting the landscaping job would have been less favorable to the defendant, not the plaintiffs, the appeals court said.

Edward Goodman of Simonson Goodman Platzer in New York, who represented the Grazianos, and Michael Ricciardulli of Ruprecht Hart Ricciardulli & Sherman in Westfield, representing Strain and his medical group, did not respond to requests for comment.