RAYMOND H. CASTENHOLZ, M.D., APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
LOUISE A. BERGMANN AND FRANKLIN BERGMANN, HER HUSBAND, APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS
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.
A medical malpractice defendant appeals a trial court's order granting a new trial after discovering that four jurors, including one alternate, failed to disclose their prior litigation history during voir dire. The appellate court affirms the new trial grant, finding the trial court properly applied the De La Rosa test to determine the jurors' non-disclosures were material and intentional.
The trial court properly granted a new trial under the De La Rosa test, which requires showing that undisclosed information was relevant and material to jury service, that jurors concealed the information during questioning, and that failure to disclose was not attributable to counsel's lack of diligence. The court also properly admitted the video surveillance evidence and denied discovery of the photographer's notes, as no abuse of discretion occurred.
[1] A new trial may be granted when a juror fails to disclose material prior litigation history during voir dire, provided the nondisclosure was not attributable to a lack of…
[2] A trial court's decision to grant a new trial based on juror nondisclosure of prior litigation history is reviewed for clear abuse of discretion.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court determined the undisclosed information was relevant and material to jury service in the case, the jurors concealed the information during questioning, and the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the Bergmanns' lack of diligence.”
Summarizes the three-part test from De La Rosa that governs whether a new trial should be granted for juror non-disclosure.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Castenholz was sued for medical malpractice by the Bergmanns. After a jury verdict in the Bergmanns' favor, the trial court granted a new trial up…
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 Medical Malpractice cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Dr. Raymond H. Castenholz, the defendant below in a medical malpractice action, ap peals the trial court’s order granting a new trial following a jury verdict in Ms favor. We affirm the grant of a new trial on the authority of De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1995). The Bergmanns, the plaintiffs below, cross-appeal the admission of video surveillance evidence, as well as the court’s ruling disallowing discovery of the video photographer’s notes and report. We affirm the issue on cross-appeal without further comment, finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s rulings. Denny v. State, 617 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); Alamo Rent-A-Car v. Loomis, 432 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla.1980).
A new trial was granted after the trial court found four jurors, including one alternate juror, failed to disclose prior litigation history during voir dire. Applying the test of De La Rosa, the trial court determined the undisclosed information was relevant and material to jury service in the case, the jurors concealed the information during questioning, and the failure to disclose the information was not attributable to the Bergmanns’ lack of diligence. De La Rosa, 659 So. 2d at 241.
Our review of the record does not disclose the “clear showing of an abuse of discretion,” Blender v. Malecki, 606 So. 2d 498, 499 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), necessary to reverse the trial court’s decision to grant a new trial. To the contrary, to affirm the trial court’s decision we need look no further than the circumstances surrounding the final juror to be interviewed by the parties post-judgment. That juror sat mute when confronted with voir dire questions such as: “[W]ho else has been involved in a lawsuit either as a Plaintiff or a Defendant?”; “Anyone else with lawsuits for or against?”; and “Any experiences like that, claims, that is where lawyers were involved, courthouses were involved; anything of that nature? Anybody think of any experience like that?” During her post-judgment interview, however, the juror admitted to prior involvement in five distinct legal actions including: surrendering on welfare fraud charges; a small claims action brought against her by a department store; two lawsuits filed by car dealerships to recover money owed, both of wMch resulted in judgments against her that were not satisified at the time she sat as a juror; and a foreclosure action filed against her in 1994, less than one year before her service on the Bergmanns’ jury. The juror admitted she considered the foreclosure action to be a “lawsuit,” and knew she was a defendant in that action because the word “defendant” was contained on the style of the settlement agreement she received. Apropos of Judge Baskin’s observation in her dissenting opinion approved by the court in De La Rosa, it is difficult to believe a juror who was involved in five lawsuits did not think the voir dire questions posed by counsel applied to her. We affirm the grant of a new trial.
SHAHOOD, J., and KOENIG, JULIE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beyel Bros., Inc. v. Lemenze, 720 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…De La Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla.1995), this was not a ease where a juror failed to disclose involvement in six prior lawsuits. There was no showing that the juror was even aware of the county court action. Unlike Castenholz v. Bergmann, 696 So. 2d 954, 955 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), this was not a case where a post-verdict interview revealed a juror’s involvement in “five distinct legal actions,” including welfare fraud, foreclosure, and actions for money owed. Under De La Rosa, the party seeking a new…
-
Hoang Dinh Duong, M.D., Radiology Assocs. of Hollywood, P.A. v. Ziadie, 125 So. 3d 225 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ther juror with similar past litigation experience. Although all of the prior litigation experience for both jurors was dissimilar to medical malpractice litigation, Dr. Duong argues it was material, based upon cases such as Castenholz v. Bergmann, 696 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In that medical malpractice case, a juror failed to disclose involvement in five prior legal actions, including: welfare fraud charges, a small claims action, two lawsuits to recover money owed that resulted in judgments, [*228]…
-
Murphy v. Martha C. Hurst, M.D., 881 So. 2d 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)…$45,000 in debt-collection action); Young v. State, 720 So. 2d 1101 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (remanded for further jury interviews where juror in criminal sexual abuse case did not reveal she may have been victim of sexual abuse); Castenholz v. Bergmann, 696 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (juror failed to reveal five distinct actions against her); Wilcox v. Dulcom, 690 So. 2d 1365 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (juror in auto negligence case disclosed that she had settled an auto negligence claim but did not reveal that she h…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- DE LA Rosa v. Zequeira, 659 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 1995)
- Dodson v. Persell, 390 So. 2d 704 (Fla. 1980)
- Kalvin Denny v. State, 617 So. 2d 323 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Bean v. State, 432 So. 2d 746 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Steven Blender, M.D. v. Malecki, 606 So. 2d 498 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)