ÿWPCm v:&%[½{3e¿8²Y2«%g´¸ÿ«g§g3¹¬`ÛŠ¤¹ÄaÉ[/„‰²y¾…ý,S˜~7e‡Ÿ¬74ÂZÆÿþrÁ?ÍÞjÆÕЏ»­œ;Í2Ý·vŸmCf™Ì^œ 꺪¸ŽÅè@~a¿ts]ó.cà=Tû!;É#”)Úx!ÄÖ\¡}}”ëð-^YÍr$÷Ò=»d‚øór® ŽÉŒ%T Ȉ°GpöbC½E껉L-ªV'*8P¼”)å& ;íBŽ‘Aßr”Y{Ý„%Ÿ’ØÍG¹“C‹1…„ÝwÉ!×ôÃæ?ë˜5âyèm1õýî\\'gºÚ¹/h?Ïø˜|NJ¢®’ƒ»ÊÚµ±Z$ÃH§+ÉH¨P5¤ƒô>[ÏÄ™\°&(Éhý" Uz~Jf_æeú#˜HÐú‰ b΄SÎMÇ•^Ò…´_žÆ-“@àû¾úÁõTIdèÅa0À’¤-D«ÓZo©Y‚¡*½ êc )¬„šP/ºýT%B0‚1úÊ$}k¯þÒêô¯ Ý#äBxác¨¤#øý딤¤LIÌz ¬$£´$‚ÿßî˜EsþF&áqò   †“làdÁ)# >UNI %— 0(w@Å4( 0D0ÉtUN= 0l‹ UN÷ 0DE n‰ ÷ U:øøøøøøøøøøøøøø AQ2ƃ 0DI B 0Dªª D/îî B D3:˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ÷ Vø ù Dú û ü ý Uþ Ó€  n~<$3|x (3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý ¿Ý ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ` àThe€entire€text€of€Tennessee€Rules€of€Evidence,€Rule€606(b)€is:Ð ° ÐÌÒ°ÒÒ°Òà ` à(b)€Inquiry€Into€Validity€of€Verdict€or€Indictment.€€Upon€an€inquiry€intoÏthe€validity€of€a€verdict€or€indictment,€a€juror€may€not€testify€as€to€any€matter€orÏstatement€occurring€during€the€course€of€the€jury's€deliberations€or€to€the€effect€ofÏanything€upon€any€juror's€mind€or€emotion€as€influencing€that€juror€to€assent€to€orÏdissent€from€the€verdict€or€indictment€or€concerning€the€juror's€mental€processes,Ïexcept€that€a€juror€may€testify€on€the€question€of€whether€extraneous€prejudicialÏinformation€was€improperly€brought€to€the€jury's€attention,€whether€any€outsideÏinfluence€was€improperly€brought€to€bear€upon€any€juror,€or€whether€the€jurorsÏagreed€in€advance€to€be€bound€by€a€quotient€or€gambling€verdict€without€furtherÏdiscussion;€€nor€may€a€juror's€affidavit€or€evidence€of€any€statement€by€the€jurorÏconcerning€a€matter€about€which€the€juror€would€be€precluded€from€testifying€beÐ ð@   Ðreceived€for€these€purposes.ÌÌTenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b).ÌÒ°²ÒÒ°¤ÒÌÌ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó dÝ ƒ üÝ$Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ýà ` àThe€Constitution€provides:€ð ðTrial€by€jury€„€Qualifications€of€jurors.€„€That€theÐ ° Ðright€of€trial€by€jury€shall€remain€inviolate,€and€no€religious€or€political€test€shall€ever€be€requiredÏas€a€qualification€for€jurors.ðð€€Tenn.€Const.€art.€I,€ðð€6.€€€€ ÷Ý ƒ!¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XFcXXXÔÔ€ XXFcÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XFcX ÔÐ  ÐÌJune€7,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular ! #%Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý d($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó'''÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñþ ñ›ñþ ñÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ  ÓÑ7€ªXXdðXXdð7Ññ ññþ ñßr€(<,(j 8` `€€@Eȱ` 8ttxP°ð  rßñþ ññ ññ ññ ññ ññþ ñ›ñþ ññ ññ ññ ñßt€(>.*jxò ` `€€@Eºº` 8ttxPò°ð tßñ ññ ññ ññ ññ ññ ñ›ñ ññ ññ ñßt€(>.*jxÂK` `€€@EŠû` 8ttxP°ê K tß›ñ ñà@} } ìàò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@jj%ìàAT€JACKSONˆÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€òò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð à ÐÌóóÌELEASE€OWENS,€for€herself€andà h àœas›à À à)Ð ` ° Ðnext„of„kin€to€ETHERLINE€€à h àà À à)Ð P   ÐBAILEY,€Deceased,€€€€€€à  à€à h àà À à)Ð @  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à  àà h àà À àò ò)à  àó óShelby€Circuit€No.€35507Ð  p  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àò ò)Ð `  Ðv.à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)à  àó óAppeal€No.€œ02A01„9704„CV„00089ò ò›Ð ð@  ÐMETHODIST€HEALTH€CARE€€€€€€€€€€€€€à À à)Ð à0  ÐSYSTEMS€and€WILLIAM€C.€PHELPS,à À à)Ð Ð  ÐM.D.,à  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ð À Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À à)Ìà  àó óDefendants/Appellees.à h àà À àò ò)Ð  ð ÐÌÌó óÌÌà0  àà ° àà@] ] ì(#(#àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYˆÌà@## ìàAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌÌà@‘ ‘ ìàTHE€HONORABLE€JANICE€M.€HOLDER,€JUDGEˆÌÌÌòòÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:òòà  àà h àà À àFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó,€Ð À! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àòòWilliam€C.€Phelps,€M.D.óó:Ð °"  ÐÌDuncan€E.€Ragsdale€€à ¸ àà  àà h àà À àJerry€E.€Mitchell€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð $à" ÐMemphis,€Tennessee€€€à  àà h àà À àStephen€C.€Barton€€€Ð €%Ð # Ѐ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à  àà h àà À àMemphis,€TennesseeÐ p&À!$ ÐÌÌò òà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àAFFIRMEDó óÐ @)$' ÐÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€€J.òòÐ €4Ð/3 ÐóóÐ  p5À04 ÐØØÓÓÑ7€ªXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@55'ìàò òOPINIONó óˆÐ ° Ðà  àThis€is€a€medical€malpractice€case.€€The€plaintiff€asserts€that€the€defendant€physician€causedÏthe€death€of€the€decedent€in€the€course€of€childbirth.€€The€jury€found€in€favor€of€the€defendantÏphysician.€€The€plaintiff€appeals,€asserting€error€in€the€jury€instructions€and€juror€misconduct.€€WeÏaffirm.Ìà  àEtherline€œBailey›€(ð ðdecedentðð)€was€admitted€to€Methodist€Hospital€Labor€and€Delivery€atÏ11:35€p.m.€on€August€16,€1990.€€She€labored€under€observation€until€7:10€a.m.€when€she€was€takenÏto€the€operating€room€for€a€cesarean€section€delivery€by€Defendant€William€C.€Phelps,€M.D.Ï(ð ðPhelpsðð).€€After€the€cesarean€section€incision€had€been€closed,€an€erroneous€sponge€countÏperformed€by€employees€of€the€hospital€indicated€a€sponge€was€missing.€€A€subsequent€x„rayÏrevealed€what€was€believed€to€be€a€sponge€left€in€the€decedent.€€Phelps€reopened€the€incision€andÏsearched€unsuccessfully€for€the€missing€sponge.€€A€later€sponge€count€revealed€that€no€sponges€hadÏbeen€missing.€€Ìà  àDuring€the€entire€procedure,€including€the€reopening€of€the€incision,€decedent€lost€an€unusualÏamount€of€blood.€€Phelps,€assisted€by€Dr.€œC.€O.€Daugherty,›€worked€to€replace€decedentððs€lost€fluidsÏand€to€stop€the€bleeding.€€Due€to€decedentððs€excessive€blood€loss€and€a€shortage€of€clotting€factorsÏ(called€disseminated€intravascular€coagulation€or€DIC),€Phelps€brought€in€Dr.€œThomas€Earl€Motley›Ïas€a€blood€management€consultant.€€Dr.€Motley€began€managing€decedentððs€fluids.€€There€was€someÏdelay€in€the€time€taken€by€Methodist€Hospital€(ð ðMethodistðð)€in€filling€orders€for€blood€products€forÏthe€decedent;€the€parties€dispute€whether€œthe€conduct€of€Methodistððs›€blood€bank€fell€below€theÏstandard€of€care.€€In€any€event,€after€being€taken€to€the€recovery€room,€the€decedentððs€conditionÏcontinued€to€decline.€€She€subsequently€went€into€cardiac€arrest.€€Phelps€ordered€full€cardiacÏresuscitative€measures€with€life€support,€but€these€were€unsuccessful€and€decedent€was€pronouncedÏdead€at€3:24€p.m.€€Ìà  àElease€œOwens€(ð ðOwensðð),›€for€herself€and€as€the€decedentððs€next€of€kin,€brought€suit€againstÏMethodist€and€Phelps.€€Phelpsðð€primary€defense€was€that€decedent€died€from€a€rare,€generallyÏuntreatable€condition€called€amniotic€fluid€embolism€(AFE).€€With€AFE,€debris€from€the€amnioticÏsac€contaminates€the€blood€supply€and€interferes€with€the€clotting€factors.€€The€final€autopsy€reportÏconfirmed€that€amniotic€fluid€bubbles€were€present€in€the€œlungs›€along€with€leukocyte€thrombi;€thisÏis€associated€with€AFE.€€However,€the€report€also€noted€an€unsutured€tear€in€decedentððs€cervix.€Ð ;`6: ÐOwens€alleges€that€the€unsutured€tear€in€the€cervix€contributed€to€decedentððs€death.€€In€theÏalternative,€Phelps€asserted€that€Methodist€was€negligent€and€fell€below€its€standard€of€care.€Ìà  àPrior€to€trial,€Methodist€settled€with€Owens.€€Nevertheless,€the€jury€was€instructed€that€if€itÏfound€in€favor€of€Owens,€it€was€to€assign€the€percentage€of€fault€between€Methodist€and€Phelps.€€TheÏjuryððs€verdict€assigned€one€hundred€(100%)€percent€of€the€fault€to€Methodist,€which€was€no€longerÏa€defendant.Ìà  àOwens€filed€a€motion€for€new€trial,€alleging€omissions€in€the€jury€instructions€and€jurorÏmisconduct.€€Owens€attached€the€affidavits€of€several€jurors€stating€that€one€of€the€jurors€hadÏconsulted€a€physician€friend€regarding€the€case.€€During€the€juryððs€deliberations,€that€juror€relatedÏto€the€other€jurors€that€the€physician€had€told€her€that€œthe€defense›€testimony€proffered€by€PhelpsÏregarding€AFE€was€ð ðbunk.ðð€€The€trial€court€withheld€judgment€on€the€motion€until€after€the€jurorððsÏcontempt€hearing.€€Ultimately,€the€motion€for€new€trial€was€denied.€€From€this€order,€Owens€nowÏappeals.Ìà  àOwensðð€issues€on€appeal€concern€the€trial€courtððs€instructions€to€the€jury€and€juryÏmisconduct.€€Owens€alleges€the€trial€court€failed€to€include€all€of€œthe€Plaintiffððs›€theories€andÏcontentions€in€its€jury€instructions€and€that€the€instructions€pertaining€to€Methodist€were€confusingÏand€misleading.€€Owens€alleges€the€verdict€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence€and€the€law.€ÏOwens€further€alleges€that€the€jury€considered€matters€not€in€evidence,€communicated€with€non„¼jurors€about€the€case,€and€allowed€their€verdict€to€be€tainted€by€passion,€prejudice€and€caprice.€€SuchÏmisconduct,€Owens€asserts,€violated€œPlaintiffððs›€œright›€to€an€inviolate€jury€trial,€as€guaranteed€by€art.ÏI,€ðð€6€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Ìà  àThe€determination€of€whether€jury€instructions€were€proper€is€a€question€of€law€and,Ïtherefore,€our€standard€of€review€is€òòde€novoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€ò òòò€See€Solomon€v.Ð ð-@), ÐFirst€Am.€Natððl€Bankó óóó,€774€S.W.2d€935,€940€(Tenn.€App.€œ1989).›€€ð ðIn€reviewing€a€jury€charge,€weÐ Ð/ +. Ðconsider€the€charge€as€a€whole€to€determine€whether€prejudicial€error€has€been€œcommitted.€€The›Ïcharge€will€not€be€invalidated€so€long€as€it€fairly€defines€the€legal€issues€involved€in€the€case€andÏdoes€not€mislead€the€jury.ðð€€œò òòòHunter€v.€Burkeó óóó,€958€S.W.2d€751,€756€(Tenn.€App.€1997).›Ð p5À04 Ðà  àOwens€asserts€that€the€following€bases€of€recovery€were€omitted€from€the€jury€instructions:Ïtorn€cervix,€transfusion€therapy,€repetitive€surgical€manipulations,€general€anesthesia,€and€amnioticÐ 09€48 Ðfluid€embolism.€€Owensðð€motion€for€new€trial€states€her€objection€to€these€omissions.€€However,€theÏTennessee€Supreme€Court€in€ò òòòRule€v.€Empire€Gas€Corp.óóó ó,€563€S.W.2d€551,€554€(Tenn.€1978),€madeÐ à Ðit€clear€that€ð ðin€order€to€predicate€error€upon€an€alleged€omission€in€the€instructions€given€to€the€juryÏby€the€trial€judge€he€must€have€pointed€out€such€omission€to€the€trial€judge€at€trial€by€an€appropriateÏrequest€for€instruction.ðð€€òòò òId.óó€ó ó€The€œPlaintiff›€points€to€no€place€in€the€record€in€which€€jury€instructionsÐ 0 € Ðon€these€ð ðomittedðð€issues€were€œrequestedñù ñ,ñù ññø ñ€nor€does€the€Plaintiff€cite€any€objection€at€trial€to€theseÏomissionsñø ñ.›€€It€is€the€appellantððs€ð ð€ððresponsib[ility€to]€furnish[]€theÏappellate€court€with€a€record€that€will€enable€that€court€to€reach€the€issues€raised.ðð€ðð€òòò òEwell€v.€Hilló óóó,Ð ð@  ÐNo.€02A01-9608-CH-00178,€1998€WL€18142,€at€*2€(Tenn.€App.€Jan.€21,€1998)€(quoting€ò òòòWord€v.Ð Ð  ÐWordóóó ó,€937€S.W.2d€931,€933€(Tenn.€œApp.€1996)).›€€It€is€œthe›€threshold€duty€of€a€party€alleging€errorÐ ° Ðin€the€omission€of€a€specific€instruction€to€demonstrate€that€a€correct€and€complete€request€for€suchÏinstruction€was€submitted€to,€and€refused€by,€the€trial€œjudge.€€òòò òSee€England›€v.€Burns€Stone€Co.óóó ó,€874Ð pÀ ÐS.W.2d€32,€37€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€In€the€absence€of€a€request€for€such€œinstructionsñú ñ€and€an€objectionÏto€the€omission€of€the€instructionsñú ñ,›€the€trial€courtÏmust€be€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà  àOwens€also€contends€on€appeal€that€the€jury€instructions€were€confusing€and€misleading.ÏOwens€argues€that€the€jury€instructions€would€lead€the€jury€to€believe€that€Methodist€could€be€heldÏliable€for€the€negligence€of€the€certified€registered€nurse€anesthesiologists€(CRNAs)€or€theÏanesthesiologist,€even€though€neither€were€employees€of€Methodist€and€Methodist€could€not€be€heldÏliable€for€their€negligence.€€In€addition,€Owens€contends€that€the€jury€instructions€were€erroneousÏbecause€they€failed€to€set€forth€the€required€elements€under€Tennesseeððs€medical€malpractice€statute,ÏTennessee€Code€Annotated€ðð€29„26„115.€€This€statute€œrequires€the›€ð ðclaimantðð€in€a€medicalÏmalpractice€case€to€prove€(1)€the€standard€of€care€applicable€to€the€defendant,€considering€his€or€herÏspecialty€and€community€standards,€(2)€that€the€defendantððs€actions€fell€below€that€standard€of€care,Ïand€(3)€that,€as€a€result,€the€plaintiff€suffered€injuries€that€would€not€have€otherwise€œoccurred.€€ò òòòSeeóóó ó›€Ð ð-@), ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€œ29„26„115€(1980).›€€Ìà  àThe€instructions€at€issue€state:ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓœDr.›€Phelps€further€contends€that€if€any€deviation€from€the€standard€of€care€occurred,Ïany€such€deviation€was€by€the€employees€of€Methodist€Hospital€by€failing€toÏproperly€administer€blood€products€in€a€timely€manner€or€by€the€anesthetistsððÏimproper€use€of€a€general€anesthesia.€ÌœÌ›à ` à€.€.€œ.€.Ì›œñý ñÌñý ñ›Ð  :p59 Ðà ` àThe€defendant,€Dr.€Phelps,€has€the€burden€of€proving,€by€the€greater€weightÏor€preponderance€of€the€evidence:€1)€the€recognized€standard€of€professional€practiceÏfor€a€nurse€or€nurse€anesthetist€in€the€community€in€which€that€person€practices€orÏin€a€similar€community;€2)€that€such€person€acted€with€less€than€or€failed€to€act€withÏordinary€and€reasonable€care€in€accordance€with€that€standard;€3)€and€that€theÏnegligence€of€any€nurse€or€nurse€anesthetist€was€a€proximate€cause€of€injuries€andÏdamages€to€the€plaintiff€that€would€not€otherwise€have€occurred.€€œÌ›ÌÓ†,ÓÓÓà ` à€.€.€œ.€.̛̜à ` àIn€deciding€this€case,€you€must€determine€the€fault,€if€any€of€each€of€twoÏpersons,€William€C.€Phelps,€and€the€Methodist€Health€Care€Systems.€€If€you€find€thatÏboth€Dr.€Phelps€and€the€Methodist€Health€Care€Systems€are€at€fault,€you€will€thenÏcompare€their€fault.€€To€do€this,€you€will€need€to€know€the€definition€of€fault.€€AÏperson€is€at€fault€if€you€find€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence€that€a€person€wasÏnegligent€and€that€the€negligence€was€a€proximate€cause€of€the€injury€or€damages€forÏwhich€a€claim€is€made.ÌÌà ` à.€.€.€.€ÌÌ›à ` àA€hospital€has€the€duty€to€exercise€that€degree€of€care,€skill€and€diligenceÏused€by€hospitals€generally€in€the€community€and€required€by€its€express€or€impliedÏcontract€with€the€patient€and€to€furnish€the€care,€attention€and€protection€reasonablyÏrequired€by€the€patientððs€mental€and€physical€condition.€€The€amount€of€caution,Ïattention€and€protection€required€in€the€exercise€of€reasonable€care€depends€upon€theÏknown€condition€of€the€patient€and€the€patientððs€needs.€€Ìà ` àIf€you€find€that€an€employee€of€the€hospital,€while€in€the€course€ofÏemployment,€was€negligent€in€the€performance€of€the€employeeððs€duties,€then€theÏhospital€is€legally€responsible€for€the€injuries€proximately€caused€by€the€employeeððsÏnegligence.€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€œÌÌà ` à.€.€.€.€ÌÌÌà ` àLadies€and€gentlemen,€you€will€be€given€a€verdict€form€to€record€yourÏverdict.€€Your€first€obligation€is€to€determine€the€fault,€if€any,€of€William€C.€PhelpsÏand€Methodist€Health€Care€Systems.€€Next,€you€must€assign€a€percentage€of€fault€toÏeach€of€them.€€This€percentage€figure€for€each€may€range€from€zero€(0)€percent€to€oneÏhundred€(100)€percent.€€When€the€percentages€of€fault€of€those€being€compared€areÏadded€together,€the€total€must€equal€either€zero€(0)€percent€or€one€hundred€(100)Ïpercent.€€Your€next€obligation€is€to€determine€the€full€amount€of€damages€sustainedÏby€the€plaintiff€if€you€find€fault€on€the€part€of€either€Dr.€Phelpsñô ñññ ñ.ññ ññô ñ€or€the€Methodist€CareÏSystems.›ÌÒ°j,ÒÒ°x,ÒÌÓG0ÓOn€appeal,€a€jury€charge€will€not€be€invalidated€so€long€as€the€entire€jury€charge,€viewed€as€a€whole,Ïfairly€defines€the€issues€and€does€not€mislead€the€jury.€€œòòò òSee€Grissom›€v.€œMetropolitan›€Govððt€ofÐ Ð/ +. ÐNashvilleóóó ó,€817€S.W.2d€679,€685€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€ò òòò€óóó óJury€instructions€are€not€required€to€be€perfect.€Ð °1-0 Мòòò òSee€id.;Ô‡ X\XXXÔ›€City€of€Johnson€City€v.€Outdoor€West,€Inc.ó óóó,€947€S.W.2d€œ855,€858›€(Tenn.€App.€1996).€Ô#†X\›XX X\B:#Ô€œThe›Ð 3à.2 Ðjury€œinstructions›€in€this€case,€considered€as€a€whole,€fairly€define€the€issues€and€do€not€mislead€theÏjury.€Ìœñõ ñÐ  P9 48 Ðñõ ñ›à  àThe€fact€that€the€jury€instructions€contained€statements€that€the€CRNAs€and€theÏanesthesiologist€were€employees€of€Methodist€was€harmless€error€under€the€facts€of€this€case.€€TheÏjury€concluded€that€Phelps€was€not€negligent.€€The€œPlaintiff›€points€to€nothing€in€the€record€indicatingÏthat,€had€the€instructions€stated€that€the€CRNAs€and€anesthesiologist€were€not€employees€ofÏMethodist,€the€jury€would€have€concluded€that€Phelps€was€negligent.€€Therefore,€any€error€in€thisÏregard€would€not€affect€the€judgment€or€prejudice€the€judicial€process.€€ò òòòSee€œó óóóTenn.€R.€App.€P.›€36(b).€Ð `  ÐTherefore,€we€decline€to€invalidate€the€trial€courtððs€charge€to€the€jury.€ÌÓÓÓÓà  àOwens€also€contends€on€appeal€that€the€jury€verdict,€assessing€one€hundred€percent€ofÏliability€to€œMethodist,›€is€contrary€to€the€weight€of€the€evidence.Ô‡ X\XXX\›Ô€€In€the€order€denying€Owensðð€motionÐ ° Ðfor€a€new€trial,€the€trial€judge€found€that€the€evidence€was€sufficient€to€sustain€the€verdict€for€Phelps.€ÏWhen€factual€determinations€made€by€a€jury€have€been€approved€by€the€trial€judge,€an€appellate€courtÏmay€œset›€aside€these€factual€findings€only€in€the€absence€of€any€material€evidence€in€the€record€toÏsupport€the€verdict.€€œò òòòSee€Jackson›€v.€Pattonó óóó,€952€S.W.2d€404,€405€(Tenn.€1997).€€In€ò òòòEllis€v.€WhiteÐ 8ˆ ÐFreightliner€Corp.ó óóó,€603€S.W.2d€125€(Tenn.€1980),€the€Court€said€that€ð ðwhen€the€trial€judge€hasÐ ` Ðapproved€the€verdict,€the€review€in€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€subject€to€the€rule€that€if€there€is€anyÏmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€award,€it€should€not€be€disturbed.ððÓ\>Ó€ÓÓò òòò€Id.óóó ó€at€129;€ò òòòsee€also€Coffey€Ô#†X\›XX X\?#ÔÔ‡ X\XXX\›Ôv.Ð À  ÐFayette€Tubular€Prods.ó óóó,€929€S.W.2d€326,€331€n.2€(Tenn.€1996)Ô#†X\›XX X\ÒB#ÔÔ‡ X\XXX\›Ô.€€At€trial,€the€jury€heard€theÐ ˜"è  Ðfollowing€eÔ#†X\›XX X\mC#Ôxpert€testimony€on€whether€Methodist€breached€its€standard€of€care€in€supplying€theÐ p$À" Ðblood€products:€€ÌÒ°ÒÒ°ÒÓÓQ:à ` àNow,€how€long€was€it€from€the€time€that€Dr.€Phelps€or€whoever€ordered€theÐ P( #& Ðblood€product€ordered€it€[sic]€until€the€time€that€the€hospital€got€it€there?ÌA:€à ` àIt€„„€I€think€for€the€blood€products€like€cryoprecipitate€and€fresh€frozenÐ 0*€%( Ðplasma,€it€was€like€two€plus,€greater€than€two€hours.ÌQ:à ` àAnd€that€would€be€a€delay€which€would€be€unacceptable€to€you,€correct?Ð ,`'* ÐA:à ` àCorrect.Ð -P(+ ÐQ:€€à ` àAnd€any€delay€of€that€type€when€a€physician€orders€a€particular€product€if€theÐ ð-@), Ðhospital€canððt€get€it€there€in€less€than€an€hour,€you€would€feel€that€would€be€belowÏthe€standard€of€care€for€the€hospital,€true?ÌA:à ` àYes.Ð À0,/ ÐQ:à ` àAnd€you€also€feel€œthat€that›€delay€by€the€hospital€was€a€contributing€factor€toÐ °1-0 Ðthe€ultimate€outcome€in€this€case,€true?ÌA:à ` àI€think€we€have€discussed€that€before€and€I€do€think€that.Ð 3à.2 ÐQ:à ` àIn€other€words,€given€everything€we€have€talked€about,€if€the€DIC€could€haveÐ €4Ð/3 Ðbeen€treated€earlier,€then€Ms.€Bailey€may€very€well€have€survived,€if€the€bloodÏproducts€had€gotten€there?ÌA:à ` àI€think€that€is€very€conceivable.Ð P7 26 ÐÌÒ°vDÒÒ°hDÒÓ„DÓœñö ñÐ  09€48 Ðñö ñThe›€testimony€at€trial€clearly€indicated€that€it€was€the€nursesðð€duty€to€perform€the€sponge€count€andÏthat€the€miscount€caused€a€delay.€€Phelps€also€points€to€testimony€in€the€record€that€he€ð ðadhere[d]Ïto€the€standard€of€care€in€all€aspects€of€treatment,ðð€that€his€management€of€the€blood€products€wasÏwithin€the€standard€of€care€in€Tennessee,€that€he€appropriately€repaired€the€uterus,€that€he€wasÏobligated€to€search€for€the€missing€sponge€if€he€was€told€that€a€sponge€was€missing,€and€that€theÏdecision€to€use€general€anesthesia€was€made€by€the€anesthetists.€€Based€on€the€entire€record,€the€juryÏcould€reasonably€have€concluded€that€Phelps€did€not€deviate€from€the€appropriate€standard€of€care.€ÏThere€was€adequate€testimony€in€this€case€to€support€the€juryððs€verdict€in€Phelpsðð€favor.€€Ìà  àOn€appeal,€Owens€also€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€denying€the€motion€œñû ñfor€ñû ña›€new€trialÏbased€on€juror€misconduct.€€The€record€indicates€that€one€juror€consulted€a€physician€friend€who€saidÏthat€the€testimony€proffered€by€Phelps€regarding€Phelpsðð€AFE€defense€was€ð ðbunk.ðð€€AffidavitsÏshowed€that€this€information€was€shared€with€other€jurors€during€the€juryððs€deliberations.€€OwensÏacknowledges€that€the€extraneous€information€in€this€case€tended€to€undercut€òòPhelpsððóó€defense,€notÐ 0€ Ðthe€œPlaintiffððs›€evidence.€€Nevertheless,€Owens€argues€that€the€jurorsðð€affidavits€indicate€that€theÏjurorððs€introduction€of€extraneous€information€produced€a€strong€negative€reaction€from€the€otherÏjurors€and€œtherefore›€subverted€the€judicial€process.€€He€also€asserts€that€the€extraneous€informationÏcaused€the€jury€to€focus€on€a€theory€on€the€lost€sponge€that€would€have€resulted€in€a€finding€againstÏMethodist.Ìà  àThe€admissibility€of€the€jurorsðð€affidavits€is€governed€by€Rule€606(b)€of€the€Tennessee€RulesÏof€Evidence,€which€limits€jurorsðð€testimony€to€three€areas:€(1)€extraneous€prejudicial€information,Ï(2)€outside€influence,€and€(3)€agreements€made€in€advance€to€be€bound€by€a€quotient€or€gamblingÏverdict.€òò€ò òSeeóóó ó€Tenn.€R.€Evid.€606(b).œ×ƒ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€This€Court€has€previously€noted€several€ð ðinternalðð€influencesÐ ,`'* Ðthat€cannot€serve€as€grounds€to€overturn€a€jury€verdict:€€ð ð(1)€discussions€among€jurors,€(2)Ïintimidation€or€harassment€of€one€juror€by€another,€(3)€a€jurorððs€personal€experiences€not€directlyÏrelated€to€the€litigation,€and€(4)€a€jurorððs€subjective€thoughts,€fears,€and€emotions.ðð€€òòò òCaldararo€v.Ð pÀ ÐVanderbilt€Univ.óóó ó,€794€S.W.2d€œ738,€742›€(Tenn.€App.€1990).€€Thus,€we€cannot€consider€as€groundsÐ P   Ðfor€a€new€trial€Owensðð€assertions€of€error€that€the€jury€based€the€verdict€on€the€lost€sponge€or€thatÏjurors€harassed€each€other€during€the€deliberations.€Ìà  àThe€sole€issue€for€our€consideration,€therefore,€is€whether€the€physician€friendððs€statementÏderiding€Phelpsðð€AFE€defense€prejudiced€Owens.€€As€noted€by€the€œPlaintiff,›€òòò òCaldararo€óóó óstates€thatÐ Ð  Ðconsideration€of€evidence€that€has€not€been€admitted€and€communications€with€non„jurors€areÏexternal€influences€that€might€justify€a€new€trial.€€œòòò òSee€id.€€óóó óThis›€is€true,€however,€only€if€such€eventsÐ à Ðare€found€to€be€prejudicial.€€œòòò òSee€id.óóó 󛀀In€this€case,€the€misconduct€was€clearly€harmless€because€theÐ pÀ Ðjury€found€Phelps€was€not€negligent€despite€criticism€of€his€AFE€defense€as€ð ðbunkðð€by€the€jurorððsÏphysician€friend.€€This€information€was€not€prejudicial€to€Owens.€€Indeed,€the€statement€dispelledÏPhelpsðð€primary€defense.€€We€find€no€evidence€that€the€verdict€was€based€on€passion,€prejudice€andÏcaprice.€€Ìà  àOwens€also€asserts€on€appeal€that€the€jurorððs€discussion€of€the€case€with€her€physician€friendÏviolated€Owensðð€right€to€an€inviolate€jury€trial€as€guaranteed€by€art.€I,€ðð€6€of€the€TennesseeÏConstitution.œ×ƒ0×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×›€€Owens€notes€the€trial€courtððs€statements€that€the€jurorððs€misconduct€was€anÐ $à" Ðð ðobstruction€of€justiceðð€and€ð ðan€interference€of€the€order€of€the€process€of€decision€making€in€juryÏcases.ðð€€Despite€the€trial€courtððs€strong€statements€and€obvious€displeasure€at€the€jurorððs€disregardÏof€its€instructions,€the€trial€court€expressly€denied€Owensðð€motion€for€a€new€trial€even€though€theÏjurorððs€misconduct€was€at€issue€in€that€motion.€€€We€find€no€error€in€the€trial€courtððs€decision.Ìœñ÷ ñÐ  ð-@), Ðñ÷ ñ›à  àIn€sum,€since€the€record€does€not€indicate€that€Owens€requested€jury€instructions€on€theÏtopics€œomittedñü ñ€or€that€Owens€objected€at€trial€to€the€omission€of€such€instructionsñü ñ,›€we€decline€to€reverse€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€a€new€trial€on€that€basis.€€The€juryÏinstructions,€viewed€as€a€whole,€were€not€misleading€or€confusing.€€œFurthermore,›€the€jury€œchargeÏindicating›€that€the€anesthetists€were€employees€of€œMethodist›€was€harmless€error.€€Based€on€the€trialÏrecord€as€a€whole,€we€find€sufficient€material€evidence€to€support€the€jury€verdict.€€The€juryÏmisconduct€was€not€prejudicial€to€Owens€based€on€the€facts€of€this€case.€€Finally,€Owensðð€right€toÏan€inviolate€jury€trial€was€not€violated.€€Consequently,€the€trial€courtððs€denial€of€Owensðð€motion€forÏa€new€trial€is€affirmed.€€€€Ìà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€taxed€to€Appellant,€for€which€executionÏmay€issue€if€necessary.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÓÓÔ‡ X\XXX\›Ôà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð P  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.Ð <Œ Ðó óà  àò òÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð Ø( ÐóóW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.€J.,€W.S.Ð Ä ÐÌÌó óÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ð t#Ä! Ðóóò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ó óÔ#†X\›XX X\o`#Ô