KENDALL COLLIER EX REL. CHAYCE C. v. PERICLIS ROUSSIS M.D., ET AL. - Articles

All Content

KENDALL COLLIER EX REL. CHAYCE C. v. PERICLIS ROUSSIS M.D., ET AL.

Posted by: Julia Wilburn on Feb 20, 2024

Court: TN Court of Appeals

Attorneys 1: Joe Bednarz Sr. and Joe Bednarz Jr., Hendersonville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Chayce Collier, a minor, by and through his natural parent and next friend, Kendall Collier.

Attorneys 2: Raymond G. Lewallen Jr., Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellee, Periclis Roussis M.D.

Attorneys 3: Rick L. Powers and Rachel P. Hurt, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Fort Sanders Perinatal Center and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center.

Judge(s): SWINEY

This appeal concerns juror misconduct. Chayce Collier (“Chayce”), a minor, by and through his parent and next friend, Kendall Collier (“Plaintiff”), sued Periclis Roussis M.D. (“Dr. Roussis”), Fort Sanders Perinatal Center and Fort Sanders Regional Medical Center (“the Hospital”) (“Defendants,” collectively) in the Circuit Court for Knox County (“the Trial Court”) alleging health care liability in Chayce’s delivery. A major issue at trial was whether Dr. Roussis fell below the standard of care by failing to administer epinephrine to Plaintiff when she had an anaphylactic reaction during labor. The jury found for Defendants. However, it emerged that a juror had gone home and looked at the warning on an epipen which said that epinephrine should only be used when the potential benefit justifies the potential risk to the fetus. The juror shared this information with the rest of the jury. Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court first granted and then denied. Plaintiff appeals. Under Tenn. R. Evid. 606(b), jurors may not be asked what effect, if any, that extraneous information had on them. Instead, courts look to the extraneous information itself to determine whether there is a reasonable possibility that it altered the verdict. We hold that there is a reasonable possibility that the extraneous information shared with the jury in this case altered the verdict, and Defendants failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice. The trial court applied an incorrect legal standard and thereby abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff’s motion for a new trial. We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: