## Facts

- Parents sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged medical malpractice by personnel at Quantico Naval Hospital involving their seven-month-old daughter.
- On June 26, 1977, the child had a convulsion and a 104° fever; a physician’s assistant diagnosed an upper respiratory infection, gave Tylenol, and sent her home.
- On June 28, 1977, a physician examined the child, diagnosed a severe ear infection, and prescribed antibiotics and decongestant medication; whether the earlier convulsion was disclosed was disputed.
- On July 1, 1977, another physician noted symptoms of meningitis and sent the child to Walter Reed Hospital, where meningitis was diagnosed; the child suffered permanent neurological injuries.
- At a bench trial, the district judge entered judgment for the United States.
- During trial, the judge repeatedly intervened in plaintiffs’ examination of their expert in a disparaging and mocking manner, and curtailed plaintiffs’ cross-examination of the government’s key expert on changes between his pretrial opinions and his trial testimony.
- The judge made repeated remarks about settlement, malpractice insurance costs, and the burden on taxpayers if the United States were found liable.
- The district court’s written findings substantially tracked the government expert’s report.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial judge’s conduct and comments during a bench trial deprived the plaintiffs of a fair and impartial trial, requiring reversal and a new trial.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit reversed the judgment for the United States and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held that the trial judge’s pervasive, one-sided interventions and restrictions on cross-examination created the appearance (and indicated the reality) of prejudgment.
- The court concluded that remarks about settlement and taxpayer or insurance consequences reflected reliance on improper considerations unrelated to negligence and causation.
- The court determined that, given the overall pattern, the proper remedy was a retrial (to restore impartial adjudication), not a limited remand.

## Legal Principles

- Parties are entitled to an impartial trial judge; judicial conduct that demonstrates bias or prejudgment can require reversal even in a bench trial.
- A trial judge may question witnesses to clarify testimony, but may not ridicule a party’s witness, act in a manner that aligns with one side, or prevent meaningful cross-examination on material points such as prior inconsistent expert opinions.
- Comments suggesting pressure to settle or weighing extraneous financial or policy concerns in deciding liability are improper and can contribute to a finding that the proceeding was unfair.
- Findings that effectively adopt a party’s expert report, when coupled with curtailed testing of that expert’s views, may support a conclusion that the court failed to perform independent fact-finding.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit ordered a new trial because the district judge’s conduct—disparaging treatment of plaintiffs’ expert, obstruction of cross-examination of the government’s expert, and reliance on improper considerations—denied the plaintiffs a fair and impartial adjudication under the FTCA.


Crandell v. United States, 703 F.2d 74 (4th Cir. 1983)