Breckenridge v. Valley General Hosp.

• Decision Date: 04 September 2003
• Docket Number: No. 73481-0.,73481-0.
• Citation: 75 P.3d 944,150 Wash.2d 197
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: Lynda BRECKENRIDGE, Petitioner, Steven D. Uberti, as Guardian ad Litem of Angel Breckenridge and Brandy Breckenridge, minors; and Stephanie Gitts, Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL and Snohomish County Public District Hospital # 1 d/b/a Valley General Hospital; "John Doe" M.D. and "Jane Doe," husband and wife, Defendants, Tomas Nowak, M.D. and "Jane Doe" Nowak, husband and wife, Respondents.

75 P.3d 944

150 Wash.2d 197

Lynda BRECKENRIDGE, Petitioner, Steven D. Uberti, as Guardian ad Litem of Angel Breckenridge and Brandy Breckenridge, minors; and Stephanie Gitts, Plaintiffs, v. VALLEY GENERAL HOSPITAL and Snohomish County Public District Hospital # 1 d/b/a Valley General Hospital; "John Doe" M.D. and "Jane Doe," husband and wife, Defendants, Tomas Nowak, M.D. and "Jane Doe" Nowak, husband and wife, Respondents.

No. 73481-0.

Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc.

Argued June 12, 2003.

Decided September 4, 2003.

Brewe Layman PS, Karen Moore, Sabrina Layman, Everett; Messina Bulzomi Law Firm, John Mesina, Cynthia Morgan, Tacoma, for Petitioner.

Williams Kastner & Gibbs, Mary Spillane, Margaret Sundberg, Seattle, for Respondents.

BRIDGE, J.

Lynda Breckenridge was examined by Dr. Thomas Nowak in the emergency room for a severe headache. She later suffered a massive aneurysm in the occipital area of her brain. She then sued Dr. Nowak, maintaining that Nowak should have ordered a CT (computerized tomography) scan to rule out the possibility of a sentinel bleed, which often precedes a more devastating rupture.¹

At trial, the jury unanimously concluded that Nowak had not committed medical malpractice in his treatment of Breckenridge. Breckenridge then moved for a new trial alleging juror misconduct. She claims that one of the jurors committed misconduct when he related his experiences with his wife's migraines during jury deliberations, comparing her symptoms to those of Breckenridge.² Breckenridge asserts that the juror's comments constituted extrinsic evidence regarding the standard of care that the jury may have relied on in reaching its verdict.³ The trial court granted a new trial, but Division One of the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the juror's statements pertained to his life experiences and therefore did not constitute misconduct. Because we find that the juror's statements inhere in the verdict, we affirm.

I

Lynda Breckenridge had a history of migraine headaches. On November 19, 1996, she experienced a severe headache that began with a sudden neck pain and worsened after she had a cigarette. Despite her headache, Breckenridge went to work in the morning and then went shopping with a friend. Because her headache persisted, she visited the emergency room at Valley General Hospital that afternoon.

When Dr. Nowak, a board certified emergency medicine physician, saw Breckenridge upon her admission, Breckenridge's chief complaint was a "bad migraine." Report of Proceedings (RP) at 750. Her vital signs were normal. She reported some nausea and blurred vision, and that the onset of her migraines was not typically this sudden. In response to his questions about her past headaches, Breckenridge informed him that she had had several migraines of the same intensity in the past.

Nowak conducted a physical examination of Breckenridge. Upon manipulating her neck, he discovered her neck hurt equally with flexation and rotation.⁴ She was able to squeeze his fingers strongly and easily, and had a normal gait. After the examination, Dr. Nowak concluded that Breckenridge was an "alert female who appears uncomfortable but who otherwise has normal affect and sensorium." RP at 758. He concluded that she was suffering from a migraine headache. Although he originally considered the possibility of bleeding in the brain, he ruled it out because Breckenridge's pain began in her neck rather than her head. He did not order a CT scan, but did treat her pain and nausea, and told her to return with any new or increasing symptoms.

After more than two hours in the emergency room, she was discharged feeling better than when she had arrived. Her headache pain dissipated overnight.⁵ In a subsequent appointment with her primary care physician, Breckenridge did not complain of a headache. On December 5, 1996, Breckenridge ruptured an aneurysm in the left temporal occipital area of her brain.

In October 1999, Breckenridge and her children filed suit against Nowak in Snohomish County Superior Court, alleging that he negligently diagnosed a migraine headache rather than ordering a CT scan to rule out the possibility of a sentinel bleed. The case was tried to a jury. Upon questioning during voir dire, two of the jurors replied that they had personal experience with migraine headaches. Juror De Rosia disclosed that she had a personal history of migraines. Juror Corson disclosed that his wife had a history of migraine headaches and that he had accompanied her to the emergency room for treatment of her headaches on several occasions. He was questioned about his wife's symptoms and her treatment.⁶ Both jurors were allowed to remain on the jury.⁷

At trial, the parties each called a neurology and an emergency room expert to testify about the standard of care and whether Breckenridge's symptoms were typical of her usual migraines. The experts agreed that if Breckenridge's November 19 headache was typical of her earlier migraines, the standard of care did not require Nowak to order a CT scan. They disagreed, however, about whether Breckenridge's headache was typical or atypical for her.⁸ The jury unanimously found that Nowak was not negligent in his treatment of Breckenridge.

Breckenridge moved for a new trial, arguing based on the declaration of Juror Temple that both Juror Corson and Juror De Rosia committed misconduct by introducing extrinsic evidence into the jury deliberations. According to Temple's declaration, De Rosia stated during deliberations that when she had a migraine, she had to lie down and could not do anything. This comment was made in the course of arguing that Breckenridge's headache could not have been very severe since she went shopping and to work that day. Temple further asserted that Corson told the jury that "his wife had gone to emergency rooms several times with symptoms similar to those experienced by Lynda Breckenridge on November 19, 1996, and that never was a CT scan ever discussed or done on his wife." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 69.⁹ According to Temple, Corson used these experiences to support his opinion that Nowak had complied with the standard of care in his treatment of Breckenridge.

The trial court found that De Rosia's statement constituted "the use of common universal knowledge or life experience to test the evidence that was admitted." CP at 15. Therefore, De Rosia did not commit misconduct when she discussed her experiences during deliberations. However, regarding Corson's statement, the trial court found that it constituted extrinsic evidence that could have affected the verdict and granted a new trial.¹⁰ Nowak appealed.

In an unpublished opinion, Division One of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Corson's statement was not misconduct because it pertained to his personal life experiences. Breckenridge v. Valley Gen. Hosp., No. 49426-1-1, slip op. at 10, 114 Wash.App. 1058, 2002 WL 31743000 (Wash.Ct.App. Dec.9, 2002). Breckenridge sought this court's review, which we granted. We now affirm.

II

Deciding whether juror misconduct occurred and whether it affected the verdict are matters for the discretion of the trial court, and will not be reversed on appeal unless the court abused its discretion. State v. Balisok, 123 Wash.2d 114, 117, 866 P.2d 631 (1994); Halverson v. Anderson, 82 Wash.2d 746, 752, 513 P.2d 827 (1973). "A strong affirmative showing of misconduct is necessary in order to overcome the policy favoring stable and certain verdicts and the secret, frank and free discussion of the evidence by the jury." Balisok, 123 Wash.2d at 117-18,866 P.2d 631. A trial court abuses its discretion when its decision is "manifestly unreasonable, or exercised on untenable grounds, or for untenable reasons." State ex rel. Carroll v. Junker, 79 Wash.2d 12, 26, 482 P.2d 775 (1971). Greater weight is owed the decision to grant a new trial than the decision to deny a new trial. Richards v. Overtake Hosp. Med. Ctr., 59 Wash.App. 266, 271, 796 P.2d 737 (1990),review denied, 116 Wash.2d 1014, 807 P.2d 883 (1991).

The Court of Appeals found that Corson's statements related to his personal life experiences rather than being extrinsic testimony about the standard of care and therefore did not constitute misconduct. Breckenridge, slip op. at 10.¹¹ We agree that Corson's statements constituted his personal life experiences rather than extrinsic evidence. Corson's use of his experience with his wife's migraine headaches to evaluate the evidence presented at trial is what jurors are expected to do during deliberations. There was no misconduct.

However, it is unnecessary to make this determination. Corson's statements inhered in the verdict.¹² Because a trial court may not consider postverdict juror statements that inhere in the verdict when ruling on a new trial motion, the trial court abused its discretion by granting a new trial.

Appellate courts will generally not inquire into the internal process by which the jury reaches its verdict. Gardner v. Malone, 60 Wash.2d 836, 840, 376 P.2d 651 (1962); Richards, 59 Wash.App. at 270, 796 P.2d 737. "The individual or collective thought processes leading to a verdict `inhere in the verdict' and cannot be used to impeach a jury verdict." State v. Ng, 110 Wash.2d 32, 43, 750 P.2d 632 (1988). Thus, a juror's postverdict statements regarding the way in which the jury reached its verdict cannot be used to support a motion for a new trial. Id. at 44, 750 P.2d 632. In Gardner, this court set forth the test for determining whether evidence of misconduct inheres in the verdict: "One test is whether the facts alleged are linked to the juror's motive, intent, or belief, or describe their effect upon him.... Another test is whether that to which the juror testifies can be rebutted by other testimony without probing the juror's mental processes." 60 Wash.2d at 841, 376 P.2d 651.

In Cox v. Charles Wright Academy, Inc., 70 Wash.2d 173, 176,...