JENNIFER O'CONNOR VS. RIVERSIDE PEDIATRIC GROUP, PC (L-4996-16, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE) ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                 NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
    APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
    This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the
    internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
    SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
    APPELLATE DIVISION
    DOCKET NO. A-0700-18T2
    JENNIFER O'CONNOR
    (Administratrix Ad Prosequendum)
    on behalf of the ESTATE OF
    JAYDEN O'CONNOR, a/k/a
    JAYDEN GARZONE, an Infant
    (Deceased), and JENNIFER
    O'CONNOR, Individually,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.
    RIVERSIDE PEDIATRIC GROUP,
    PC, SADRUL ANAM, M.D., and
    WILSON DELGADO, M.D.,
    Defendants-Respondents.
    _____________________________
    Submitted November 12, 2019 – Decided September 2, 2020
    Before Judges Rothstadt and Mitterhoff.
    On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
    Division, Hudson County, Docket No. L-4996-16.
    Mitchell L. Brown, attorney for appellant.
    Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin,
    attorneys for respondents (Walter F. Kawalec, III, on
    the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Plaintiff Jennifer O'Connor appeals from a jury verdict finding that
    defendants Riverside Pediatric Group, Dr. Sadrul Anam, and Dr. Wilson
    Delgado were not negligent in their care of plaintiff's decedent, Jayden
    O'Connor. On appeal, plaintiff raises several arguments related to the trial
    judge's alleged errors during jury selection, and she contends that these
    cumulative errors necessitate reversal of the jury's verdict and a new trial. Based
    on our review of the record and the governing legal principles, we affirm.
    We discern the following facts from the record. On December 15, 2016,
    plaintiff filed a complaint and jury demand on behalf of the estate of her son,
    Jayden, against defendants for medical malpractice that resulted in Jayden's
    death. Jayden, who was eighteen months old at the time of his death, suffered
    from X-linked Severe Combined Immune Deficiency. Plaintiff alleged that as
    a result of defendants' failure to properly examine Jayden and their deviations
    from the standard of care, Jayden was deprived of the opportunity to undergo a
    life-saving bone marrow transplant, which caused him to suffer extreme pain
    and discomfort and a decreased quality of life, and ultimately caused his death.
    A-0700-18T2
    2
    At the start of jury selection, a juror questionnaire was distributed to the
    jury pool.     The questionnaire contained four sections and asked questions
    including whether the potential jurors or their family members or close friends
    had ever worked in the medical profession or investigated medical or personal
    injury claims; had ever experienced the loss of a child; had ever suffered from a
    chronic disease that impacts the immune system or any other disabling illness;
    or were pregnant at the time. It also asked, "If the law and evidence warranted,
    would you be able to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff or defendant
    regardless of any sympathy you might have for either party?" (question thirteen).
    Attached to the questionnaire was a photograph of Jayden in the Intensive Care
    Unit.
    According to plaintiff, prior to jury selection, plaintiff's counsel objected
    to the photograph in chambers, contending that it would bias the process.
    Thereafter, on the record, the judge noted that the "only thing left of any
    contention was whether or not we should show the jury pool a copy of the
    photo," and he asked if defense counsel was stipulating that the photograph be
    admitted into evidence. As defense counsel was stipulating the admission, the
    judge allowed the photograph to be shown to the jury pool, stating he did not
    "see a problem with it" or "see anything prejudicial because they're going to see
    A-0700-18T2
    3
    it anyway." After, plaintiff's counsel requested that the jury see more than one
    photograph, but that request was denied.
    Prior to distributing the jury questionnaire, the judge explained to the jury
    pool that the photograph was provided to ensure that they could "decide this
    case based upon the facts and the evidence, not on sympathy." The judge stated
    that the picture was "not for shock value" but to give them "an idea of . . . what
    [they would] see during the course of the trial" and "make sure [they]
    underst[oo]d the question" to be decided.
    After providing the potential jurors with an opportunity to review the
    questionnaire, the judge did not read the voir dire questions to the entire array;
    rather, as the jurors were called, he questioned each of them individually
    regarding their responses to each question, referring to the questions by number
    only. In response to question thirteen, three potential jurors were dismissed after
    stating that they would be unable to do so. At that point, plaintiff's counsel
    stated,
    I just think that I'm kind of getting hurt by the
    fact that people are . . . expressing that they're
    sympathetic. But I think that really they should be
    asked if they could follow the law and . . . the facts of
    the case in spite of their sympathy.
    I mean, it just seems like, "Oh, you're
    sympathetic, you know, you're gone." You know, . . . I
    don't think it's been fair to my client.
    A-0700-18T2
    4
    Just, you know, if they're sympathetic . . . they
    should be pressed more on whether they can follow the
    law[.]
    The judge agreed to "expound a little bit more" and evaluate "on a person-by-
    person basis," but he noted that those who had expressed sympathy thus far were
    "pretty adamant."
    Subsequently, two additional potential jurors were excused due to their
    response to question thirteen. The first excused juror explained that his younger
    cousin had died. As to the second, the judge followed up, inquiring whether she
    "[w]ould . . . be able to render a verdict in favor of the plaintiff or defendant
    regardless of sympathy." The potential juror responded that she works with
    children on a regular basis, and it would be difficult for her to set aside her
    sympathy. After that response, she was dismissed.
    On September 27, 2018, the jury returned a verdict in favor of defendants.
    This appeal followed.
    On appeal, plaintiff presents the following issues for our review:
    POINT I: BY FAILING TO ORALLY ASK JUROR
    QUESTIONS THE TRIAL COURT FAILED TO
    PROPERLY ASSESS JUROR BIAS, ATTITUDES
    AND REASONING ABILITY, RESULTING IN
    BIASED JUROR SELECTION (not raised below)
    POINT II: THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN
    DESCRIBING TO THE JURY POOL AND
    A-0700-18T2
    5
    SUBSEQUENTLY      ALLOWING    POTENTIAL
    JURORS TO VIEW EMOTIONALLY CHARGED
    PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT
    TAINTED THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS AND
    BIASED IT IN FAVOR OF DEFENDANTS (not raised
    below)
    POINT III: THE COURT ERRED IN CONDUCTING
    INQUIRIES AND ALLOWING JURORS TO
    ANSWER QUESTIONS AND EXPRESS BIASES IN
    OPEN COURT RATHER THAN AT SIDE-BAR
    THEREBY TAINTING THE ENTIRE JURY POOL
    AND RESULTING IN AN UNFAIR JURY
    SELECTION PROCESS (not raised below)
    POINT IV: PURSUANT TO RULE 2:10-2, THE
    JURY VERDICT SHOULD BE REVERSED IN THE
    INTEREST OF JUSTICE BECAUSE CUMULATIVE
    ERRORS OF THE TRIAL COURT WERE CLEARLY
    CAPABLE OF PRODUCING AN UNJUST RESULT
    (not raised below)
    Plaintiff first argues that the trial judge committed reversible error by
    failing to orally ask potential jurors, individually, each standard question on the
    juror questionnaire. Plaintiff contends that this error violated the Administrative
    Office of the Courts (AOC) Directive #21-06 and mandates reversal. Further,
    plaintiff contends that this error resulted in the judge's failure to properly assess
    potential jurors' biases, attitudes, and reasoning ability. We disagree.
    As plaintiff correctly notes, AOC Directive #21-06 previously required
    trial judges to read each voir dire question to each individual juror. See State v.
    A-0700-18T2
    6
    Morales, 
    390 N.J. Super. 470
    , 474 (App. Div. 2007) (holding that written
    questions "may not serve as a substitute for orally asking questions to each juror"
    and requiring strict compliance with the Directive). On May 16, 2007, however,
    the AOC issued Directive #4-07(3), which supplemented and modified AOC
    Directive #21-06 and states that "[w]here this Directive modifies voir dire
    procedures set forth in Directive #21-06, it supersedes the relevant portion of
    that Directive."1
    Directive #4-07, modified and partially superseded Directive #21-06.
    Specifically, "[t]he first modification authorizes judges, as an alternative
    procedure, to conduct voir dire without being required to verbally ask each
    question to each juror." Consequently, as of the date of plaintiff's trial, there
    was no requirement that judges orally read each question to each juror.
    1
    As the Directive notes, after the implementation of Directive #21-06, the OAC
    received critical comments from trial judges concerning the procedures in
    Directive #21-06, focused specifically on the requirement that each question
    must be verbally put to each prospective juror. In response, the Supreme Court
    Committee on Jury Selection in Criminal and Civil Trials considered the matter
    and agreed that requiring each prospective juror to be verbally asked each
    question was "unnecessary and, to some extent, counterproductive to the goals
    of the jury selection standards."
    A-0700-18T2
    7
    That said, the trial judge deviated from the alternative procedures set forth
    in Directive #4-07 because he failed to read the questionnaire aloud to the entire
    array. Specifically, Directive #4-07(3) states,
    The judge must read and review each question en banc
    with the first jurors seated in the box. The judge should
    instruct all jurors in the array to pay close attention and
    may tell them to mark their printed copy of the
    questions with their yes or no responses. The judge
    should instruct that, unless requested by a particular
    juror, the questions will not be read again, thus making
    this the appropriate opportunity for jurors to note their
    answers. The judge should also instruct that if a juror
    is unsure of his or her answer or is uncertain as to the
    meaning of the question, the juror should bring that to
    the judge's attention when called upon. Jurors will not
    place their names on the printed copies, and when a
    juror has completed the process, the printed copy will
    be returned to court staff and destroyed if written upon
    or damaged.
    Despite this error, we conclude that the judge's failure to read the standard
    questions to the entire array, as required by AOC Directive #4-07, was not in
    and of itself reversible error. There appears to have been no objection to the
    voir dire procedure used, either contemporaneously or after the verdict. 2 To the
    extent that the purpose of the Directive is to empanel a jury without bias,
    2
    We do not mean, in any way, to detract from the importance of following
    proper voir dire protocol, as provided in AOC Directives #21-06 and #4-07. See
    
    Morales, 390 N.J. Super. at 472
    –73.
    A-0700-18T2
    8
    prejudice, or unfairness, see 
    Morales, 390 N.J. Super. at 475
    , our review of the
    record does not suggest that a "miscarriage of justice" resulted from failing to
    follow those requirements, R. 2:10-1. In that regard, while the specific questions
    were not read verbatim, the procedure the judge followed included individual
    questioning of each juror concerning their impartiality.
    We also reject plaintiff's argument that the judge erred in allowing the jury
    pool to view "emotionally[]charged photographic evidence" of the decedent in
    critical condition in the ICU because it "tainted the jury selection process and
    biased the . . . process in favor of defendants." Plaintiff initially objected to
    showing the photograph but on the record requested that more photographs be
    displayed. Although we question why photographs or other evidence should
    ever be shown to an array during voir dire, only two excused jurors mentioned
    the photograph as a reason they could not be impartial; the remaining excused
    jurors had more general reasons, including the loss of a young relative or their
    work with young children. Moreover, in requesting that additional photographs
    be displayed, plaintiff's counsel evidently recognized that the photograph was
    capable of invoking sympathy to his client's benefit.
    We also reject as unfounded plaintiff's attempt to link the photograph to
    the absence of any parents on the jury. In that regard, plaintiff asserts that
    A-0700-18T2
    9
    "children are members of a cognizable group . . . and parents are an important
    cross-section of society deserving of representation as jurors." Plaintiff argues
    that the display of the photograph "could have resulted in a selection of jurors
    who were actually biased against children."
    As a threshold matter, in any Gilmore3-based claim, "a defendant must
    first identify a constitutionally cognizable group, i.e., a group capable of being
    singled out for discriminatory treatment." State v. Fuller, 
    182 N.J. 174
    , 181
    (2004) (quoting State v. Fuller, 
    356 N.J. Super. 266
    , 278 (App. Div. 2002)). Our
    Supreme Court has explained that people who are "demonstrative about their
    religions" and "age-defined groups" are not such constitutionally cognizable
    groups, as they "do not 'hold cohesive and consistent values and attitudes . . .
    [that] are substantially different from other segments of the community.'"
    Ibid. (alteration in original)
    (quoting 
    Fuller, 356 N.J. Super. at 279
    ). Similarly, here,
    parents are not a constitutionally cognizable group, and their unintentional
    exclusion from the jury was not discriminatory.
    More importantly, there was no systematic exclusion of jurors with
    children in this case. Of the eight first-seated jurors, none had children. Many,
    3
    State v. Gilmore, 
    199 N.J. Super. 389
    (App. Div. 1985), aff'd, 
    103 N.J. 508
    (1986).
    A-0700-18T2
    10
    if not most, of the replacement jurors also had no children. Plaintiff happened
    to drew an array that had an unusually high percentage of people with no
    children. Thus, even if legally sustainable, the record does not support plaintiff's
    claim.
    We also reject plaintiff's argument that the judge committed plain error by
    conducting inquiries and allowing prospective jurors to answer questions and
    express biases and opinions in open court rather than at sidebar, which she
    alleges tainted the jury pool and resulted in an unfair selection process.
    "[L]itigants are entitled to an unbiased jury and to a fair jury selection
    process." Pellicer v. St. Barnabas Hosp., 
    200 N.J. 22
    , 40 (2009). Trial judges
    have the primary responsibility of "ensur[ing] that the selection of jurors is
    conducted in a manner that will effectuate these rights."
    Ibid. In doing so,
    judges have the discretion to determine whether to question a prospective juror
    "in open court, while the prospective juror is seated in the jury box, or to conduct
    the examinations of each of them, or any of them, separately at sidebar."
    Id. at 41.
    Here, plaintiff claims that the judge abused his discretion in allowing the
    following comments to be made in open court:
    [POTENTIAL JUROR NUMBER FIVE]: I mean, I
    have an opinion. My opinion is that in healthcare they
    A-0700-18T2
    11
    try their best . . . to do what they can, so . . . that they're
    not necessarily happy with the result doesn't necessarily
    mean that . . . (indiscernible).
    ....
    [POTENTIAL JUROR NUMBER EIGHT]:                        I don't
    think you can put a price on someone's life.
    ....
    [POTENTIAL          JUROR        NUMBER        EIGHT]:
    Sometimes I get so emotional . . . . So, when we look
    at the doctors there, they are people too. Everyone has
    to make choices. And . . . people make mistakes but
    then to what extent. Like (indiscernible).
    ....
    [POTENTIAL JUROR NUMBER SEVEN]: [T]hrough
    my occupation I work in this building regularly and also
    . . . from my birth until [eighteen] years old,
    [defendants] were my pediatricians and also my
    cousin's a nurse for that group as well.
    We discern no abuse of discretion in allowing these comments to be made
    in open court as they were fleeting, and no objections were made at the time.
    All three potential jurors were excused, numbers five and eight by plaintiff and
    number seven by the judge.
    Pellicer is distinguishable from the instant case, as it involved prospective
    jurors who "voice[d] deep feelings of resentment and bias in open 
    court." 200 N.J. at 45
    . These included specific, emotionally charged examples of the poor
    A-0700-18T2
    12
    care and "negative experiences" that the potential jurors' relatives r eceived at
    the defendant hospital, which were characterized as "repeated expressions of
    anger, resentment, bitterness, and dissatisfaction . . . directed at the very facility
    where the tragic events that were about to be considered had taken place[ and]
    could not have been ignored by the jurors who overheard them."
    Id. at 45-47.
    Here, by contrast, the statements that plaintiff points out express only general
    opinions regarding the medical profession and nonspecific feelings toward
    defendants. These are neither "deep feelings of bias" that the Supreme Court
    directed must be expressed at sidebar
    , id. at 47,
    nor do they constitute ringing
    endorsements of defendants or their profession.
    In short, none of the cited errors, individually or on a cumulative basi s,
    were clearly capable of producing an unjust result and, as such, we decline to
    disturb the jury's verdict.
    Affirmed.
    A-0700-18T2
    13