Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Date: 08-20-2024
Case Style:
Valerie Baroni v. William Huether, III, M.D., et al.
Case Number: 2019-CA-2972
Judge: Susan Stacy
Court: Circuit Court, Seminole County, Florida
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Defendant's Attorney: Dinah S. Stein and Craig S. Foels
Description:
Sanford, Florida personal injury medical malpractice law lawyer represented the Plaintiff.
Valeria Baroni sued William Huether, III, M.D., and Florida Hospital alleging she suffered damages that resulted from medical malpractice. After more than three years of litigation, a five-day jury trial was held wherein Huether and Florida Hospital prevailed. Five days after the defense verdict, Baroni filed a motion seeking a new trial because of alleged concealment of information by a juror during voir dire and his further misconduct during trial.
Specifically, during jury selection, the juror at issue, J.L., was asked by the trial court, "have you been involved in a lawsuit before?"[1] J.L. responded, "Never." This answer is devoid of equivocation or uncertainty. It is clear and unambiguous-just as was the trial court's question to him.
Baroni alleged in her motion for new trial that J.L. was involved in no fewer than five prior litigations. Two of the prior cases were civil cases in which J.L. was the named defendant. One of these cases was filed in 2017 but was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice because J.L. filed for bankruptcy. His bankruptcy case was litigated for years until November 2022-just two months before jury selection in the case sub judice. J.L. also was the defendant in two criminal cases filed against him-one charging domestic battery in April 2021, and the other resulting in an adjudication of guilt for DUI causing damage/injury in 1998.
Baroni's motion for new trial also asserted that J.L. violated the trial court's clear and repeated instruction not to communicate about the case by any means, including social media. The motion alleged that J.L. posted on Facebook about the case during jury selection and repeatedly during the trial, including a statement that he was "acting crazy" during jury selection (and receiving suggestions on how to get out of jury duty), responding to comments on his original posts, posting during trial that "a good trial attorney is like a ninja," and giving a "thumbs up" to a commentor's statement, "not guilty." Baroni attached screenshots of J.L.'s Facebook page to her motion.
Following a hearing on Baroni's motion, the trial court entered its Preliminary Order and Findings on Plaintiff's Motion for New Trial, whereby it "reserve[d] ruling on [Baroni's motion for new trial] until after a juror interview can be held." This petition followed.
Outcome: The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law and properly required the postverdict interview of the offending juror, the petition is DENIED. In denying this petition, our opinion is limited to permitting the interview of the offending juror.[7] We express no opinion as to the substantive merits of Baroni's motion for new trial.
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments: