In the case of Hernandez v. Temple University Hospital, Oct. Term, 2021, No. 01422 (C.P. Phila. Co. March 21, 2025 Hill, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s ordering of a new trial at the request of the hospital Defendants in a medical malpractice action for various reasons.
According to the Opinion, this matter involved a Plaintiff who was shot in the neck at a party and then received treatment at various medical facilities. At some point, after extensive treatment, the injured party was discharged.
The Plaintiff then had mashed potatoes with a meal at home and developed difficulty breathing. He was brought to an emergency room in cardiac arrest.
There was a clinical presentation of the patient as being consisted with airway occlusion caused by eating thick foods.
The Plaintiff alleged various physical and traumatic brain injury as a result.
Of note, the court in this Opinion urged the Superior Court to dismiss the cross motions of the parties after the trial court had granted the hospital’s Motion for a New Trial, in part, because the court and counsel had discovered, after the jury trial had concluded, that one of the jurors had accessed the LinkedIn profile of the Plaintiff’s attorney during trial, which action violated the court’s instructions to the jurors.
The court noted that jurors may not consider information secured outside that information that was presented during trial and that is beyond a juror’s common knowledge. The court also noted that jurors are not permitted to contact counsel during the course of the trial.
The trial court found that a new trial was warranted when there was a reasonably likelihood of prejudice and when the harmlessness of such contact is not shown.
Given that this information about the juror accessing the Plaintiff’s attorney’s social media was not known to the court or counsel until after the verdict was rendered, it was not possible for the court to inquire what, if any, information that juror had learned from the LinkedIn page or what, if any, effect this information may have had over the jury deliberations.
The court found that this basis, alone, was sufficient to support the granting of the hospital’s request for a new trial.
The court addressed other issues in its Opinion as well.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: The Legal Intelligencer Common Pleas Case Alert, www.Law.com (July 23, 2025).
