Driss-A-Blog

The only real memory of anything involving jury duty was a teacher that I had at Hillel Day School who was on the DeLorean case and disappeared for a few months. But it was unlikely that something like that would happen, and I was quite curious as to how things worked. I filed an entry in our HR system that I'd be absent on that Wednesday, and early in the morning I headed downtown.

I brought my MacBook with me to pass the time, and got there early enough to snag a chair at the desk with internet access (there were two wireless networks that didn't work). I filled out the forms and the survey, and waited. They started calling names and assigning numbers, and told the named people to file into a room on the side. For the first case of the day, I was called as #25 of 30. I packed away the MacBook and started on a crossword in pen.

Time to meet the lawyers. They sat in front, and introduced themselves. In this case, a woman slipped and fell at a property, was taken to the hospital, and was treated there. It was a case involving a claim of negligence and a claim of medical malpractice, thus a plaintiff's lawyer and two defendants'. The plaintiff's attorney, Mr. LaClair, began.

“Is there any reason that you wouldn't be able to impartially judge the facts of this case?”

“I'm a first-year resident.”

“So this isn't the trial for you. Thank you.”

Next.

“Would you be able to judge this case impartially?”

“I'm biased both against large corporations and exceptionally-litigious individuals.”

Next.

“Could you be impartial when judging this case?”

“I took a course, Psychology and the Courtroom, in college last year, and I don't believe in impartiality,” the young woman said. LaClair was stunned; Ms. Magadia, the hospital's lawyer, looked like she was restraining a laugh.

“Excuse me?”

“Everyone has their unconscious biases that they can't eliminate.”

“Perhaps, but can't you at least say that impartiality is a goal to strive for?”

“No.”

Wow.

I had my turn, and I answered my questions truthfully. No, I couldn't think of any reason I wouldn't be able to judge impartially. My questionnaire mentioned that I liked to read as a hobby. What? Well, I used to read fiction, but nowadays the only reading I get in is the free amNewYork paper. Do I have a problem with lawsuits? No; the whole point is to provide a neutral place where people who don't agree can get a resolution.

Ms. Magadia started questioning us. She got to me.

“So, you work for Google?”

I answered affirmatively, but was a bit confused. What did that have to do with anything?

“You have no problem getting time off?”

Huh? Why would Google be different than any other employer? Something started to rub me wrong about her.

The realty corporation's lawyer (can't recall his name; sorry) didn't bother asking yet another set of questions, so we were free to wander around for a half-hour while they decided who was going to serve. I was chosen. I started on Tuesday.

Tuesday morning came, and everyone met up in the jury room. Well, mostly everyone. An older woman who was an ex-lawyer now architect, a law school librarian, some students, some retired people, a flight attendant. I was #7, the first alternate, but one of the main jurors had called in that he'd be late. After about an hour, we just couldn't wait. I was bumped up to be main, and we went in.

New York State Supreme Court Civil Case 109215/2004. Ydia Leon vs New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation and F. W. Realty LLC a/k/a Rebecca Realty Management.

Opening arguments. Mr. LaClair was first. He laid out his case. The story: A 60-year-old woman was visiting her daughter in March of 2002. It'd been raining that morning and the lobby was wet. She fell, severely breaking her wrist. She was taken to Harlem Hospital, where she was put into an external fixator to heal. Once the fixator was removed in May, she was supposed to get physical therapy in June. But due to administrative mistakes her therapy didn't start until August. LaClair claimed the delay caused her final outcome. Thus the suit.

Ms. Magadia opened. She was far less coherent than LaClair. She said that they got Ydia in a severely injured state and did all they could. If there were any lingering effects, they were due to the injuries sustained and not due to the delay.

The realty attorney opened, and essentially blamed the whole thing on the hospital. “If there hadn't been any malpractice, we wouldn't even be here.”

Mr. LaClair brought the super up to the stand and thoroughly demolished him. What was the daily routine? At 7am, sweep the lobby. That's it. No matter whether it rained or snowed, one daily sweep was it. And it wasn't even the super but some 70-year-old guy the super gave a room to in exchange for the work.

The super claimed there was always a rug covering the marble tile floor. Both Ydia and her daughter testified there never was. The super claimed that that one particular day was the only day that the rug had gone missing. When he'd heard about the fall, he said he went upstairs, found the rug missing, and immediately went to the police station to file a report. He couldn't provide any evidence of such a report. He said he replaced the rug twelve days later, which was convenient since there were pictures of the lobby taken eleven days later showing no rug. Mr. LaClair pointed out that the super had testified in the deposition that he'd replaced the rug the very next day.

Oh, and there was a surveillance camera in the lobby. But for some reason, that day's tape wasn't running properly.

The medical malpractice side was tougher. There was a lot of rehashing of the story, with the doctors reading their notes and explaining what they did. But the key to the whole thing was the delay. Ydia had the fixator taken off in May, and was scheduled for therapy in June. But when she went in, they had no record of her. July she went back to see the doctor who'd installed the fixator, and he was upset that she hadn't gotten therapy yet. She went back and got another consultation, and eventually started therapy in August. She ended up with a hand that wouldn't close all the way.

Three expert witnesses were called. The first was for the plaintiff. He examined Ydia, and testified to the limitations of her movement. He said nothing about the delay. The second doctor was plaintiff's as well. He was from some city 50 miles north of Manhattan, which was weird. Why go all the way out there? He wasn't practicing the surgery any more. He hadn't even personally examined Ydia. But he testified that the delay “absolutely” was the cause.

Third doctor was for the defense. He testified that the delay was irrelevant and that it didn't matter how much scar tissue formed. He objected to the terminology used by LaClair describing therapy when no other doctor did so.

Closing arguments. Realty lawyer went first, once again pinning it all on the hospital. Ms. Magadia went next. She was barely coherent and it seemed at times that she was close to crying. LaClair argued his case clearly but emotionally as well. By the time we were ready to be charged we were sick of the acting.

Time to reach a verdict.

Was the realty company negligent? Definitely. Did the negligence cause the final outcome? Definitely. We were shocked at the attorney. The entire time he was arguing about how the hospital was negligent, but that wasn't his case! He needed to argue that his client wasn't negligent, and we couldn't find any trace of that argument.

We spent all morning arguing over the hospital's role. Was the delay a departure from accepted medical practice? Of the three expert witnesses, one didn't mention the delay at all, and neither of the other two were really credible to me. One was obviously shopped, and one just took his arguments too far. Was the delay a departure? Yes. Did it cause the final outcome? We had to say no.

As for the final damages, Ydia was baby-sitting, making $20k per year. Loss of earnings was simple. For the past, we called it 5 years at $20k per year, and gave her 5 more years in the future at $10k per year.

But “pain, suffering and loss of enjoyment of life” was a lot harder. I asked my fellow jurors, “How much does pain and suffering go for on the free market nowadays?” I'd hoped for some guidance from the judge, but hadn't gotten any. LaClair had proposed a figure around $800k, but we all judged that to be ridiculously high. We'd already awarded her $150k for loss of earnings, so we decided to throw $50k more in there for pain and suffering and call it a day.

Final summary:

My fellow jurors: Great people. They were an incredibly deliberate and concerned.

The realty lawyer: Next time, please argue your case.

Ms. Magadia: You won, but not really because of what you presented. More credible witnesses would have helped. Also, next time, please be more coherent and less histrionic.

Mr. LaClair: There just wasn't enough evidence to prove that the delay really had an effect. You didn't really even show what the expected outcome should have been.

In general, though, it was something very worthwhile, and I'm glad I had the chance to be a part of it. And now I'm inoculated for four years from having to do it again.