Appellate Lawyer of the Week: Houston Attorney Uses Criminal Law to Reverse Med Mal Defense Win
Texas tort reform laws have made it extremely tough for medical malpractice plaintiffs to prevail in Texas civil courtrooms.
January 18, 2018 at 06:27 PM
4 minute read
Robert J. Killeen Jr.
Texas tort reform laws have made it extremely tough for medical malpractice plaintiffs to prevail in Texas civil courtrooms.
So Houston attorney Robert Killeen used a tactic normally used in criminal law litigation to convince an appellate court to reverse a take-nothing judgment against a heart surgeon and remand his plaintiff client's med mal case for a new trial.
Killeen represents Carolyn Jackson, who sued heart surgeon Daniel Garber Stroud for medical malpractice after her husband died from complications related to heart bypass surgery. Jackson is African-American and Stroud is Caucasian.
During jury selection, one of four black panelists was struck for cause. And at the conclusion of jury selection, Stroud used his peremptory strikes to remove the three remaining black panelists.
Jackson then made a Batson challenge—named after the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Batson v. Kentucky, which stands for the proposition that a prosecutor's use of peremptory challenge in a criminal case may not be used to exclude jurors based solely on their race.
But the trial court overruled Jackson's Batson challenge and no black panelist was seated on the jury. The jury later returned a defense verdict and the trial court signed a take-nothing judgment against Jackson.
Jackson appealed the judgment to Houston's First Court of Appeals arguing that the trial court abused its discretion in overruling her Batson challenge because Stroud's purported reasons for striking the black panelists were pretexts for unlawful racial discrimination.
Yet Stroud contented on appeal that the trial court properly overruled Jackson's Batson challenge because she failed to prove purposeful discrimination.
In their decision, the First Court focused on Stroud's decision to strike a black panelist, P. Howe, because she worked as a certified nursing assistant. Stroud argued in his appellate brief that Howe was struck because a CNA position requires little education and her employment in the health care field would lead her to presume expertise in medical malpractice.
But the appellate court concluded that Stroud's explanations for striking Howe were unpersuasive because he didn't bother to question Howe about his concerns during jury examination.
“The record shows that Stroud failed to ask panelist Howe any questions related to his belatedly-expressed concerns about her education, her willingness to decide the case based on the evidence rather than her experiences, or her ability to follow an instruction from the trial court to refrain from informing jurors of special medical knowledge she has acquired during her career,” wrote Justice Harvey Brown.
The decision reverses the defense win and remands the cases for a new trial, noting, “We have no reason to doubt that the attorney responsible for the challenged peremptory strikes is 'pure of heart,' and we assume that he is.”
Killeen, who represented Jackson both at trial and on appeal, said he was prepared for filing and defending his Batson challenge even though they are rarely lodged in civil cases in Texas.
“It's incredibly unusual,” Killeen, a partner in Killeen & Stern, said of the Batson challenge. “Our firm does a lot of criminal work and from my perspective, not a lot of civil lawyers know how to handle a Batson challenge in a civil trial.''
Having all of the African-American jurors struck from the panel was extremely problematic for his African-American client—something the First Court has now corrected, Killeen said.
“It's a tremendous decision. It's extremely well laid out by the First Court,'' Killeen said of the ruling.
Donald S. Stephens, a Pearland attorney who represents Stroud, said his client has not decided whether to appeal the First Court's decision.
“We're disappointed by the decision but we look forward to the resolution of the case,'' Stephens said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHomegrown Texas Law Firms Expanded Outside the Lone Star State in 2024 As Out-of-State Firms Moved In
5 minute readEnergy Lawyers Working in Texas Expect Strong Demand to Continue in 2025 Across Energy Sector
6 minute readHouston Appeals Court Split Over Race Discrimination Suit Involving COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 2For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 3As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 4General Warrants and ESI
- 5GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250