Syracuse, N.Y. — A recent legal dispute has emerged over a medical malpractice case involving serious injuries sustained by Gloria Pace after her hip surgery in 2014. The attorney for Pace’s estate is now challenging a jury verdict due to alleged misconduct by one of the jurors.
The initial trial found Dr. Scott Bradley entirely responsible for the injuries Pace suffered. Consequently, her estate was initially awarded $7 million. However, this sum was later reduced to $1.5 million by Judge Robert Antonacci upon request from the defense. Dissatisfied with the reduction, Pace’s husband demanded a new trial to reassess the damage award.
During the subsequent trial, a jury rendered a decision to award Pace’s estate $1.55 million. However, the case took a turn as Jordan Redavid, the attorney representing Pace’s estate, filed a motion to have this verdict overturned. Redavid’s motion claims serious jury misconduct, focusing on the jury foreperson who allegedly failed to disclose a significant potential conflict of interest—her husband, a practicing doctor, had been sued for malpractice four times, with two cases still pending.
Furthermore, Redavid noted in the court documents that the jury foreperson’s husband shared a professional background with Dr. Bradley, including having attended the same medical school and practiced at the same hospital. These details intensified concerns about the impartiality of the juror, leading to questions regarding the integrity of the verdict.
Redavid argued that such undisclosed details were critical and should have led to the juror’s disqualification to preserve the trial’s fairness. He pointed out historical legal precedents supporting the claim that concealing material facts by jurors constitutes misconduct. He stressed that the undisclosed conflict might have influenced the relatively low verdict, which was strikingly close to the amount set post the first trial, describing it as an “awful coincidence.”
The attorney also highlighted an unusual practice in medical malpractice trials where the defense can conceal the identities of their expert witnesses until they take the stand. He criticized this approach, arguing that it gave undue advantage to defense doctors and differed markedly from other types of trials, such as personal injury cases, where such practice is not allowed.
Redavid is also seeking civil contempt charges against the juror, demanding that she be held financially accountable for the costs associated with the trial.
As the defense is expected to respond to Redavid’s motions by April 2, this case has stirred discussions about the fairness and transparency of legal proceedings in medical malpractice trials.
This article was automatically generated by Open AI. The people, facts, circumstances, and story may be subject to errors. Inaccuracies in this article can be reported, requested for removal, or corrected by sending an email to [email protected].