## Facts

- A minor plaintiff, through her father, sued an obstetrician and his physician association for negligent prenatal and obstetrical care allegedly causing premature birth and permanent brain injury.
- The mother had a history of pregnancy complications and an anatomical condition increasing risk of miscarriage or premature delivery.
- Late in pregnancy, the mother reported by telephone that her membranes had ruptured; the on-call physician issued hospital orders through a nurse but did not personally examine her that night.
- The mother was later transferred to a tertiary hospital, and the physician did not personally communicate critical details to the receiving physicians.
- The child was born prematurely and suffered severe, lasting cognitive and physical impairments.
- At trial, the court permitted a trained therapist to conduct and explain an in-court demonstration of the child’s limitations, after the judge had observed the demonstration beforehand and supervised its presentation to the jury.
- A jury returned a $2.5 million verdict for the plaintiff.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a therapist-led in-court demonstration of the child’s impairments as unduly prejudicial.
2. Whether the plaintiff’s medical expert was qualified to testify about the applicable obstetrical standard of care and causation despite not practicing as a community obstetrician.
3. Whether juror nondisclosure of prior litigation experiences required a new trial under the “probable prejudice” standard.
4. Whether the collateral source rule barred evidence of public or other benefits available to the child in mitigation of damages.
5. Whether the $2.5 million verdict was excessive.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The court held the in-court demonstration was relevant to the extent of injury and damages and, as supervised by the trial judge, was not unfairly prejudicial.
- The court upheld admission of the plaintiff’s expert testimony, finding sufficient overlap in the expert’s training and clinical experience to address the standard of care and causation.
- The court found no showing of probable prejudice from juror nondisclosure sufficient to justify a new trial.
- The court applied the collateral source rule to exclude evidence of public benefits or services offered from sources independent of defendants.
- The court concluded the damages award was supported by the evidence of catastrophic, permanent injury and was not excessive.

## Legal Principles

- Trial courts have broad discretion to admit in-court demonstrations or exhibitions of an injured plaintiff’s condition when relevant to damages and when controlled to ensure fairness; potential sympathy does not alone make such evidence inadmissible.
- In medical malpractice cases, an expert need not share an identical specialty with the defendant if the expert’s knowledge, training, and experience substantially overlap the medical care at issue and support opinions on standard of care and causation.
- Juror nondisclosure warrants relief only upon a showing of probable prejudice to the complaining party.
- The collateral source rule bars a defendant from introducing evidence of benefits from independent or public sources to reduce the defendant’s liability for damages.
- A verdict will not be set aside as excessive absent a showing it results from improper influence or lacks evidentiary support given the nature and permanence of the injury.

## Conclusion

The Alabama Supreme Court upheld a substantial malpractice verdict, ruling that the trial court acted within its discretion in permitting a supervised demonstration of the child’s impairments, properly admitted expert testimony based on overlapping clinical competence, correctly rejected juror-misconduct claims for lack of probable prejudice, excluded collateral benefits evidence, and found the damages award supported by the severity and permanence of the injuries.


Ensor v. Wilson, 519 So. 2d 1244 (Ala. 1987)