## Facts

- Hollis Ray Bell and Helen Bell filed an Alabama medical malpractice action against John A. Vanlandingham, M.D., alleging negligent medical treatment.
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for Dr. Vanlandingham.
- The Bells moved for a new trial, arguing that they were forced to try the case before a venire that included biased jurors because the trial judge denied their challenges for cause to three prospective jurors: Wood, Turk, and Kornegay.
- Venire member **Wood** was a **pastor**. He was **not** a patient of Dr. Vanlandingham and had **not** used the doctor’s services in the past. During voir dire, Wood stated that many members of his congregation were patients of Dr. Vanlandingham and that he might feel “a little uncomfortable” serving on the jury because of those connections and his hospital visits to congregants.
- Venire member **Turk** had been a **prior patient** of Dr. Vanlandingham, but there was no indication of a **current** doctor–patient relationship at the time of trial. Turk also knew Hollis Ray Bell socially (including having hunted with him) and stated that because he knew both sides, he did not want to be involved.
- Venire member **Kornegay** was a **current patient** of Dr. Vanlandingham, who also served as her family’s physician. She stated that she would feel “awkward” sitting on the jury, but her voir dire responses indicated she could follow the law and decide the case based on the evidence.
- The trial court denied the motion for a new trial, and the Bells appealed, challenging only the refusal to excuse these three venire members for cause.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the Bells’ challenges for cause to (a) a pastor who said he might feel uncomfortable because members of his congregation were the defendant doctor’s patients, (b) a former patient acquainted with both sides who did not want to be involved, and (c) a current patient of the defendant doctor who said she would feel awkward serving.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment for Dr. Vanlandingham.
- The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to strike Wood, Turk, or Kornegay for cause.
- The court concluded that, based on the voir dire record and the trial judge’s evaluation of the jurors, none of the challenged venire members was shown to be unable to try the case fairly and impartially.

## Legal Principles

- A trial judge has broad discretion to grant or deny challenges for cause, and an appellate court gives the ruling great weight; reversal is proper only when the ruling is clearly erroneous and amounts to an abuse of discretion. (Citing Roberts v. Hutchins.)
- The key question is whether a prospective juror can set aside any feelings or opinions and decide the case fairly and impartially according to the law and the evidence. (Citing Knop v. McCain.)
- A **current** doctor–patient relationship between a prospective juror and a party is prima facie evidence of probable prejudice, but the presumption is rebuttable and the trial court must decide—based on voir dire—whether the juror can be fair and impartial. (Citing Roberts v. Hutchins.)
- A **former** doctor–patient relationship, without an ongoing relationship, does not by itself create a presumption of probable prejudice requiring removal for cause.
- General unease, awkwardness, reluctance to serve, or indirect community ties—without statements showing an inability to follow the court’s instructions and decide on the evidence—do not require excusal for cause.
- Because the trial judge observes the jurors’ demeanor and hears their answers firsthand, the judge is in the best position to determine whether any initial concern has been resolved by further questioning.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the defense verdict because the trial judge acted within his discretion in declining to remove three venire members for cause: Wood’s indirect ties through his congregation and stated discomfort did not show bias; Turk’s past treatment relationship and acquaintance with both sides did not establish probable prejudice; and Kornegay’s current doctor–patient relationship created only a rebuttable presumption that the trial court could find overcome after voir dire showed she could decide the case fairly on the law and the evidence.


Bell v. Vanlandingham, 633 So. 2d 454 (1994)