Monday, August 09, 2010

Skilled Healthcare suit to be continued

Largest Jury Verdict Of 2010, Against Skilled Healthcare, May Get Tossed Due To Jury Tampering

...To put it bluntly, it appears that one of the jurors in the case lied to the court in order to get onto the jury. That's what I was told by an attorney representing Skilled Healthcare who reached out to me on Friday... (says the author at the link)

As you might guess, before a case like this takes place, all of the perspective jurors are asked questions (sometimes a LOT of questions) in order to make absolutely sure they don’t have any conflicts of interest that would keep them from being impartial. It turns out that one of the jurors not only had familiarity with one of the nursing home facilities in question, but specifically had a very negative opinion of it.

It’s more complicated than you or I want to get into (you can read all of the details in filed court documents here), but this one juror apparently used to work in the county coroner’s office and in that capacity had dealings with a friend of hers who had issues with a Skilled nursing home.

News of this conflict would never have come to light, except that this juror bragged about it after the trial was over, at a reception hosted by the District Attorney’s office. It was so bad that it was actual two other jurors who heard it and brought it to the attention of Skilled’s attorneys. Their statements were taken and submitted to the court last Friday in a motion that also included testimony from the former Coroner (now a local city councilmember) who made it clear that he was well aware of the negative bias of this juror towards Skilled Healthcare.

Now the plaintiff’s attorneys will get a chance to respond to these allegations, but I don’t see how they are going to refute the facts that have come to light. It seems to me very likely that the judge in this case is going to have no choice but to declare a mistrial and strike down this verdict. Never mind the potential influence that this biased and untruthful juror would have had on the rest of the jury (every see 12 Angry Men?), in this kind of case it actually takes the affirmative votes of nine jurors to find wrongdoing – which is precisely the number who did so in this case. In other words, if you disqualified the vote of just this one juror, it would mean the verdict would not have been reached.

I presume that the case will be re-tried, of course. If Skilled Healthcare was not providing required minimum levels of care for those in their nursing homes, they should be held accountable (they maintain that they did provide adequate care). But if our justice system is going to work property, should another trial conclude wrong-doing on the party of this nursing home owner and operator, the jury must assign a financial verdict that is actually rational.

And as for the juror appears to have lied her way onto this jury – it seems to me that a new criminal investigation should be opened into her conduct. No one is above the law.


Will Massive $671 Million Verdict Against Skilled Healthcare Lead To The End Of Privately Owned Nursing Homes?

Skilled Healthcare suit to be continued

A hearing on the latest motion in the class-action lawsuit involving Skilled Healthcare is being pushed back to Friday, the court ruled this morning.

Attorneys agreed to address the issue of juror misconduct, along with a possible injunction sought by Humboldt County District Attorney Paul Gallegos, on Friday. There is no word yet if parties in the case have reached a settlement.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't know enough about this case other than it seems that the DA knew about this as did the plaintiffs lawyers. If the claims are true then that juror, the DA and the local lawyers should be condemned for their greed. This will have wasted the jury's time, the courts time and the hopes of the plaintiffs as well as the defendants. Another cluster of corruption brought to you be Gags the liar.

Anonymous said...

i think this is a question of California law and precedence dealing with juror misconduct which is difficult to answer. i would like to see the defense brief in response.

Anonymous said...

"a reception hosted by the DA's office"???????????

Anonymous said...

How can we rely on justice to be served when we can't even trust the courts to make sure that jurors are truly impartial and not involved with the prosecution in some way? I mean, at this point if I end up in court should I expect one of my "impartial" jurors to be a girlfriend of the arresting policeman or something? This whole thing really stinks.

Anonymous said...

I hope that the courts seriously reviews this case. There is so much wrong with this whole thing that it really destroys and expectation of "justice" being done in our courts anymore.

Anonymous said...

A reception in the DA's office? While the case is open to appeal? What an idiot. What a self centered moron. And sure enough, it blows up. So busy trying to make political hay (as usual, on the back of someone else) he manages to tube the whole case. Well, maybe he got some donations out of it first . . .

Anonymous said...

Didn't the TS report Gallegos was a bystander in this case which was handled exclusively by a SoCal attorney and a local civil firm. I am wondering 2 things;

1. Why is Gags taking credit for something he was a bystander in and;
2. Was his involvement a political gift of county resources for the plaintiffs lawyers.

Can someone tell us if these lawyers contributed money to his campaign? Or is their silence payback for the taxpayers involuntary gift of resources? I'd have no problem if there were a crime here but Gallegos never charged them and it seems that his involvement for a day for the "injunction" part was smoke and mirrors for the misuse of county resources. Seems the civil lawyers could have asked for the injunction. Seems also that he couldn't fuck things up too bad by simply asking for the injunction since the other guys did th work to earn the private lawyers millions. How much do the plaitiffs get? Nothing right. This is very sad indeed.

Rose said...

Comments are closed.