PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY D/B/A JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND JMH HEALTH PLAN, APPELLANTS,
v.
GELERME METELLUS AND MARIE LACROIX METELLUS, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a new trial was improperly granted because the juror's voir dire omission was not a deliberate misstatement and there was no showing counsel would have used a peremptory challenge.
Defendants in a medical malpractice case appeal an order granting a new trial after a defense verdict. A juror failed to disclose a divorce and credit…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse New Trial Grounds cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
The defendants in a medical malpractice case appeal from an order granting a new trial after a defense verdict because a serving juror, in answer to a question on voir dire as to whether she had been involved in a “lawsuit,” failed to reveal that she had been in a divorce and was the subject of collection efforts by creditors against her. For two reasons, we reverse for entry of judgment in accordance with the verdict.
First, in the absence of any definition of “lawsuit” which would, as in Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla.2002), include such proceedings, there was no deliberate misstatement by the juror which would justify relief under De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1995).
Second, and quite separately, there was no showing, as is also required, that counsel would have exercised a peremptory challenge against the juror had he been given the information in question. See Freedman v. De La Cuesta, 929 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA2006).
Reversed.
FLETCHER, J., concurs.
SHEPHERD, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the judgment on the ground that the juror nondisclosures in this case were not material within the meaning of Roberts v. Tejada, 814 So. 2d 334, 340 (Fla.2002), and its progenitor, De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla.1995). I am less sanguine about the majority conclusion that there was no concealment or “deliberate misstatement” within the meaning of the controlling case law in this area.
However, because materiality is a sine qua non to the grant of a new trial on the basis of juror nondisclosure, Tejada, 814 So. 2d at 339 (delineating three elements, all of which must exist for a party to be awarded a new trial on the basis of juror nondisclosure), we need not reach that question. See Mann v. State, 937 So. 2d 722, 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (Shepherd, J., specially concurring)(noting that “[the] procedural ground [was] a sufficient ground to affirm the decision of the trial court” and therefore declining to join remainder of majority opinion); N. Fla. Women’s Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612, 640 (Fla.2003) (declining to address remaining constitutional claims in case because unnecessary to disposition of the case); see also PDK Labs., Inc. v. United States DEA, 362 F. 3d 786, 799 (D.C.Cir.2004)(Roberts, J., concurring) (“[I]f it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more ... ”).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kenz v. Miami-Dade Cnty. & Unicco Serv. Co., 116 So. 3d 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)…ds, that summary judgment is appropriate either way, simply because there is not a semblance of evidence of negligence, I would affirm without reaching the primary issue discussed by the Court. See Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade County v. Metellus, 948 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (Shepherd, J., specially concurring) (citing PDK Labs., Inc. v. U.S. DEA., 362 F. 3d 786, 799 (D.C.Cir.2004)).…
-
Tromondo Tobias Bolling v. State, 61 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…allenge out of ten remaining by the time Mr. Maxwell, juror number 46, was seated. But Mr. Bolling never even alleged that he would have used a peremptory challenge to strike Mr. Maxwell. See, e.g., Pub. Health Trust of Miami-Dade Cnty. v. Metellus, 948 So. 2d 4, 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (reversing order granting new trial because a juror did not reveal she had been in a divorce and was the target of collection efforts, in part because there was no showing that counsel would have exercised4 a peremptory challen…
-
Weissman v. Radiology Assocs. OF Ocala, P.A., 152 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…prospective jurors had been involved in any lawsuits. Considering the context of RAO’s question, a juror could have concluded that RAO was asking only about lawsuits involving credit issues. In Public Health Trust of Miami-Dade County v. Metellus, 948 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006), the district court reversed an order granting a new trial for a juror’s failure to disclose involvement in divorce and collection proceedings, .finding no concealment in the absence of a definition of a lawsuit provided in the qu…
Authorities Cited
- DE LA Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)
- N. Fla. Women's Health & Counseling Servs., Inc. v. State, 866 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2003)
- Roberts v. Francisco Tejada, M.D., 814 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 2002)
- LaFLOWER v. McDONOUGH, 937 So. 2d 722 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Freedman v. DE LA Cuesta, 929 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)