 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schexnayder v. Mathews3/16/2005
AFFIRMED.
In this medical malpractice case, plaintiffs, Glenda Schexnayder, her husband and two major daughters, appeal the jury verdict in favor of defendant, Dr. Gary L. Mathews. The jury concluded that he did not breach the standard of care in his treatment of Mrs. Schexnayder. Mrs. Schexnayder alleges that Dr. Mathews misread and/or improperly interpreted screening mammogram films, which led to a delay in the diagnosis of breast cancer. For the following reasons, we affirm.
I. ISSUES
We will consider whether:
1) during voir dire, in light of a Batson/Edmonson challenge, the trial court erred in its ruling allowing peremptory challenges of jurors to stand;
2) the trial court erred in allowing the Medical Review Panel Opinion into evidence; and,
3) the trial court erred in allowing an expert witness to testify when a PowerPoint presentation was not produced.
II. FACTS
On January 21, 1999, Mrs. Schexnayder had a screening mammogram performed. The mammogram films were reviewed by Dr. Mathews, and he concluded they were "normal" with no significant changes from a 1994 mammogram screening. After another mammogram screening in April, 2000, Mrs. Schexnayder was diagnosed with breast cancer, which later metastasized to various other locations of her body.
Mrs. Schexnayder sought to prove that the January 21, 1999 mammogram film show asymmetrical density in the left breast which should have prompted Dr. Mathews to investigate further. Plaintiffs believe that this would have led to an earlier diagnosis and a better prognosis for Mrs. Schexnayder.
A medical review panel convened as a result of this allegation and rendered a decision in favor of Dr. Mathews. Subsequently, the Schexnayders filed suit in district court, which was tried to a jury. Prior to trial, plaintiffs sought to exclude radiologist, Dr. Eva Rubin, head of breast imaging at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, for failure to provide her PowerPoint presentations for review. Plaintiffs also sought to exclude the Medical Review Panel Opinion (MRP Opinion) on the basis that defendants did not call any panel members to testify at trial to lay a foundation to admit the panel's opinion into evidence. Lastly, plaintiffs made a Batson/Edmonson challenge during jury selection following defendant's use of peremptory strikes.
The jury rendered a verdict in favor of Dr. Mathews. Plaintiffs seek reversal of the judgment and a new trial based on the perceived errors in the trial court's ruling on the issues set forth above.
III. LAW AND DISCUSSION
Batson/Edmonson Challenge In these proceedings, the jury venire consisted of twenty-four persons.
Five members of the jury venire were black. Defendant used five of six peremptory challenges on black potential jurors, thus eliminating all blacks from potential service. The trial court upheld a Batson challenge on two jurors, Ms. Karen Lambert and Ms. Marlena Ann Arceneaux, and placed them back on the jury after a successful Batson challenge. The trial court upheld the peremptory challenges of Ms. Beverly Marie Johnson and Mr. Caffery Levine in light of the non-pretextual explanations offered by counsel for Dr. Mathews.
On review of the Batson challenge, the composition of the jury was accepted by the Schexnayders and, therefore, the objection to the jury's constitution was waived. After reinstating Ms. Lambert and Ms. Arceneaux, plaintiffs' counsel responded, " e have our jury and an alternate." (Emphasis added). Co-counsel for the Schexnayders, Ms. Lavender, added, " nd I think that on the whole, any real person w
Page 1 2 Louisiana Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|