Verdicts

In this medical malpractice action, the Court of Appeals of Maryland declared in a case of first impression that in civil actions the presence of alternate jurors in the jury deliberation room is presumptively prejudicial, requiring re-trial on the issues. Grimstead v. Brockington, — A.3d —-, 2010 WL 5129070 (Md., 12/17/10).

The plaintiff was awarded $1,959,195 after the jury found that her doctor failed to correctly diagnose and treat her cancer. At the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, the judge instructed alternate jury members to attend the jury deliberations without participating. The defendant did not object to this. However, during jury deliberations, two of the original jury members were excused for medical reasons. The trial judge substituted two of the alternates for the original jury members. The defendant was unhappy with these substitutions and objected at the time of substitution, but his objections were denied. The doctor appealed, asserting that the trial court commited reversible error under Maryland Rule 2-512(b) by allowing the alternate jurors to attend jury deliberations and allowing them to substitute for two regular jurors during deliberations, even though he had expressly agreed to the alternates' presence during the deliberations and attempted to withdraw his consent only when the trial court designated the alternates to replace regular jurors. The Court of Special Appeals reversed, finding the judge erred, and this appeal followed.