{ "id": 8376405, "name": "CHAD TYLER EDMUNDSON, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, THOMAS J. FARRIS, DARRYL G. SMITH, and BOBBY G. ABRAMS, Plaintiffs v. LEESA GREER LAWRENCE, M.D., and EASTERN CAROLINA PEDIATRICS, P.A., Defendants", "name_abbreviation": "Edmundson ex rel. Farris v. Lawrence", "decision_date": "2007-12-18", "docket_number": "No. COA07-694", "first_page": "799", "last_page": "803", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "187 N.C. App. 799" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "648 S.E.2d 788", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12639123 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/648/0788-01" ] }, { "cite": "631 S.E.2d 114", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12636049 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118", "parenthetical": "stating that an appellate court's review of a trial court's ruling granting or denying a motion to set aside the verdict is limited to an abuse of discretion standard" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/631/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "361 N.C. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3738089 ], "year": 2007, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "449" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/361/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 L. Ed. 2d 708", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "520 U.S. 1201", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11706948, 11706885, 11706857, 11707084, 11707245, 11706926, 11707118, 11707056, 11707152, 11707027, 11706996, 11706908, 11707198, 11706975 ], "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/520/1201-05", "/us/520/1201-02", "/us/520/1201-01", "/us/520/1201-10", "/us/520/1201-14", "/us/520/1201-04", "/us/520/1201-11", "/us/520/1201-09", "/us/520/1201-12", "/us/520/1201-08", "/us/520/1201-07", "/us/520/1201-03", "/us/520/1201-13", "/us/520/1201-06" ] }, { "cite": "372 S.E.2d 517", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "520" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "323 N.C. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2566216 ], "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/323/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "476 S.E.2d 328", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "336", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 324, 372 S.E.2d 517, 520 (1988)" }, { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "344 N.C. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 867670 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "460", "parenthetical": "citing State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 324, 372 S.E.2d 517, 520 (1988)" }, { "page": "461" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/344/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "271 S.E.2d 58", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "63" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 123", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564391 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "129" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0123-01" ] }, { "cite": "360 N.C. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 3795905 ], "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523", "parenthetical": "stating that an appellate court's review of a trial court's ruling granting or denying a motion to set aside the verdict is limited to an abuse of discretion standard" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/360/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "573 S.E.2d 609", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "612", "parenthetical": "\"The trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9251077 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "564", "parenthetical": "\"The trial court's ruling on a motion for mistrial generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E.2d 438", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "439", "parenthetical": "\"[Q]uestion[s] of venue . . . [rest] within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and [are] not subject to review except for manifest abuse of such discretion.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "255 N.C. 202", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568183 ], "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "204", "parenthetical": "\"[Q]uestion[s] of venue . . . [rest] within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and [are] not subject to review except for manifest abuse of such discretion.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/255/0202-01" ] }, { "cite": "415 S.E.2d 726", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "732", "parenthetical": "The standard of review for a denial of a challenge for cause is abuse of discretion" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "331 N.C. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2498038 ], "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "248", "parenthetical": "The standard of review for a denial of a challenge for cause is abuse of discretion" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/331/0239-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 453, "char_count": 8307, "ocr_confidence": 0.749, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2032168670837566 }, "sha256": "5e6ab842d9fb8f4bc48291fba20297e10b912885469f0fac9ede51d649b9c065", "simhash": "1:87237c7b356e8977", "word_count": 1379 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:56.575920+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges JACKSON and ARROWOOD concur." ], "parties": [ "CHAD TYLER EDMUNDSON, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, THOMAS J. FARRIS, DARRYL G. SMITH, and BOBBY G. ABRAMS, Plaintiffs v. LEESA GREER LAWRENCE, M.D., and EASTERN CAROLINA PEDIATRICS, P.A., Defendants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "TYSON, Judge.\nChad Edmunson (\u201cplaintiff\u2019), through his Guardian ad litem, appeals the trial court\u2019s orders entered denying his: (1) challenge for cause; (2) motion for change of venue; (3) motion for a mistrial; and (4) motion to set aside the verdict. We hold there is no error in these orders.\nI. Background\nOn 12 December 2002, plaintiff commenced a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Leesa Lawrence (\u201cdefendant\u201d). The only background facts needed to understand the issues on appeal occurred during the selection of the jury. The voir dire of the potential and empaneled jurors was not recorded. Plaintiff\u2019s counsel exhausted his peremptory challenges and subsequently made a challenge for cause to juror one, Mr. Martin. The trial court denied plaintiffs challenge for cause.\nThe only information contained in the record on appeal concerning Mr. Martin, is a portion of the recorded transcript narrating the exchange between the trial court and plaintiffs counsel:\nThe Court: The Court inquired of [defendant\u2019s counsel] as to his position. He indicated to the Court that he objected to the plaintiff\u2019s challenge for cause. The Court having paid close attention to the answers of Mr. Martin during the course of his examination by [plaintiff\u2019s counsel] and by the Court respectfully denied the challenge for cause. [Plaintiff\u2019s counsel] is there anything you\u2019d like to put on the record to your challenge for cause?\n[Plaintiff\u2019s counsel]: Only this, it was my understanding at the bench, your honor, that [sic] that objection would be preserved as such, since I had used all of my peremptory challenges including those extra ones that had been given by the consent of the parties and agreement of the court. And that we were just unable to find a jury in this case, despite the court\u2019s assistance, that did not have children that were seen by Dr. Lawrence\u2019s practice.\nThe Court: All right. Thank you. I think the record should clearly reflect in response to the Court\u2019s questions and questions by [plaintiff\u2019s counsel] that the juror indicated that he had no \u2014 himself had no direct contact with the practice of the defendant, individual defendant. And that he further stated that even though his wife was the one who took the children to the practice that he had no direct knowledge of what happened when she took him. And that that [sic] would not play any part in how he decided the case. That is the treatment by the practice of his children and any physicians who testified \u2014 who were members of the practice who testified he would be able to fairly, scrutinize their testimony just like he would anyone else, any other physician who had not \u2014 who was not a member of the practice and who had not treated his children.\nSubsequently, plaintiffs counsel moved for a change of venue and a mistrial based on the denial of his challenge for cause to Mr. Martin being seated as a juror. The trial court denied both motions and the matter proceeded to trial. The jury returned a verdict finding plaintiff was not injured by defendant\u2019s negligence. On 7 February 2007, the trial court entered judgment in accordance with the verdict. Plaintiff appeals.\nII.Issues\nPlaintiff argues the trial court erred by denying his: (1) challenge for cause; (2) motion to change venue; (3) motion for a mistrial; and (4) motion to set aside the verdict.\nIII. Standard of Review\nThe standard of review for each of plaintiffs assignments of error is abuse of discretion. See State v. Locklear, 331 N.C. 239, 248, 415 S.E.2d 726, 732 (1992) (The standard of review for a denial of a challenge for cause is abuse of discretion); Farmers Cooperative Exchange, Inc. v. Trull, 255 N.C. 202, 204, 120 S.E.2d 438, 439 (1961) (\u201c[Q]uestion[s] of venue . . . [rest] within the sound discretion of the trial judge, and [are] not subject to review except for manifest abuse of such discretion.\u201d); State v. Hinton, 155 N.C. App. 561, 564, 573 S.E.2d 609, 612 (2002) (\u201cThe trial court\u2019s ruling on a motion for mistrial generally lies within the sound discretion of the trial court and will be reversed only upon a showing of a manifest abuse of discretion.\u201d); Davis v. Davis, 360 N.C. 518, 523, 631 S.E.2d 114, 118 (2006) (stating that an appellate court\u2019s review of a trial court\u2019s ruling granting or denying a motion to set aside the verdict is limited to an abuse of discretion standard). Atrial court may be reversed for abuse of discretion only upon a showing that its actions are \u201cmanifestly unsupported by reason.\u201d Clark v. Clark, 301 N.C. 123, 129, 271 S.E.2d 58, 63 (1980).\nIV. Challenge for Cause\nOur review of the trial court\u2019s ruling is limited to that portion of the transcript contained in the record on appeal. Plaintiff argues the trial court abused its discretion by denying his challenge for cause when Mr. Martin had three minor children who were patients of defendant\u2019s practice. We disagree.\nOur Supreme Court has held, \u201cmere acquaintance with witnesses alone [is] not a sufficient basis for a challenge for cause.\u201d State v. Hartman, 344 N.C. 445, 460, 476 S.E.2d 328, 336 (1996) (citing State v. Benson, 323 N.C. 318, 324, 372 S.E.2d 517, 520 (1988)), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1201, 137 L. Ed. 2d 708 (1997). The issue is whether the challenged juror could remain fair and impartial. Hartman, 344 N.C. at 461, 476 S.E.2d at 337.\nHere, the trial court found: (1) Mr. Martin had no direct contact with defendant\u2019s practice; (2) Mr. Martin\u2019s wife took their children to defendant\u2019s practice; (3) Mr. Martin had no direct knowledge of what happened at defendant\u2019s practice; (4) this information would play no part in Mr. Martin\u2019s decision regarding this case; and (5) Mr. Martin would be able to fairly, scrutinize testimony from physicians, who were members of defendant\u2019s practice.\n\u201cIf the record supports the trial court\u2019s decision that the juror could follow the law, then the trial court\u2019s ruling should be upheld on appeal.\u201d State v. Cummings, 361 N.C. 438, 449, 648 S.E.2d 788, 795 (2007). Based upon our review of the limited transcript presented to this Court, we hold that plaintiff failed to show the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiff\u2019s challenge for cause. This assignment of error is overruled.\nV. Plaintiff\u2019s Other Motions\nPlaintiff argues the trial court erred by denying plaintiff\u2019s motion for change of venue, motion for a mistrial, and motion to set aside verdict on the grounds that \u201cplaintiff\u2019s counsel was unable to find twelve jurors that did not have children that were seen by [defendant\u2019s] practice.\u201d Based upon the analysis above and our holding, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff\u2019s motions. These assignments of error are overruled.\nVI. Conclusion\nThe trial court found that the juror challenged by plaintiff for cause could be fair and impartial in his decision regarding this case. Plaintiff has failed to show the trial court abused its discretion by denying defendant\u2019s challenge for cause.\nPlaintiff\u2019s other assignments of error were based on the same theory: the denial of plaintiffs\u2019 challenge for cause to Mr. Martin being seated as a juror. The trial court properly denied plaintiffs motion for change of venue, motion for a mistrial, and motion to set aside the verdict. We hold there is no error in the verdict or the judgment entered thereon.\nNo error.\nJudges JACKSON and ARROWOOD concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "TYSON, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Keel O\u2019Malley Timstall, L.L.P., by Jimmie R. Keel and Susan M. O\u2019Malley, for plaintiffs-appellants.", "Jerry A. Allen, Jr., and O. Drew Grice, Jr., for defendants-appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CHAD TYLER EDMUNDSON, by and through his Guardian ad Litem, THOMAS J. FARRIS, DARRYL G. SMITH, and BOBBY G. ABRAMS, Plaintiffs v. LEESA GREER LAWRENCE, M.D., and EASTERN CAROLINA PEDIATRICS, P.A., Defendants\nNo. COA07-694\n(Filed 18 December 2007)\nJury\u2014 selection \u2014 challenge for cause denied \u2014 no abuse of discretion\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying plaintiff\u2019s challenge for cause, as well as other related motions, to a potential juror in a medical malpractice action where the challenged juror had three minor children who were patients of defendant\u2019s practice.\nAppeal by plaintiffs from judgment entered 7 February 2007 by Judge Thomas D. Haigwood in Wilson County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 29 November 2007.\nKeel O\u2019Malley Timstall, L.L.P., by Jimmie R. Keel and Susan M. O\u2019Malley, for plaintiffs-appellants.\nJerry A. Allen, Jr., and O. Drew Grice, Jr., for defendants-appellees." }, "file_name": "0799-01", "first_page_order": 829, "last_page_order": 833 }