A trial judge must consider all the answers given by a potential juror during jury selection when an attorney seeks to bar the person from jury service based on a claim that some of the answers the potential juror gave indicate the person will not follow the law, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

A Supreme Court majority upheld a Montgomery County Common Pleas Court judge’s decision not to disqualify four potential jurors as requested by a lawyer for the estate of a man who died of cancer. The estate sued Kidney Care Specialists and other medical providers for malpractice for failing to adequately treat the man’s kidney cancer. The estate’s attorney argued that the potential jurors’ answers to questions during jury selection indicated that they would not follow the law.

Writing for the Court majority, Justice Joseph T. Deters stated the state law requires a judge to disqualify a prospective juror if the juror’s answers disclose the person “cannot be fair or impartial or will not follow the law as given” by the court. He wrote it is the duty of the judge to weigh the answers given and determine whether the reason to exclude the juror is valid.

The Court found the record supported the judge’s conclusion that the protest to the four potential jurors was invalid.

The Second District Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding the judge did not abuse her discretion when ruling against the family’s challenges. The Supreme Court found the Second District’s conclusion was correct, but its reasoning was wrong.  The Second District’s determination was based on two prior Supreme Court decisions that indicated a judge has discretion to decide who remains in the jury pool.

Justice Deters’ opinion announced that the two prior Court decisions from 1990 and 2007 are overruled because the law, R.C. 2313.17, does not grant judges discretion when a challenge that a juror will not follow the law is valid.

Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy and Justices Patrick F. Fischer, R. Patrick DeWine, Daniel R. Hawkins, and Megan E. Shanahan joined the opinion. Justice Jennifer Brunner concurred in judgment only.

Family Sues Medical Providers
In 2017, Harold Price was suffering from advanced kidney disease. An MRI showed a lesion on his right kidney, and a report recommended a follow-up study. Harold did follow up with two specialists, but no further steps were taken to treat his right kidney. In 2020, he was diagnosed with kidney cancer originating from the right kidney. Less than five months later, he died from kidney cancer.

His widow, Cythnia Price, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit on behalf of her husband’s estate against her husband’s primary care physician, several medical specialists who treated him, and the firms employing the doctors.  Before the trial , Price dismissed her claims against Kidney Care Specialists and all the providers except against her husband’s primary care physician, one specialist, and their employers, Kettering Physicians Network and Nephrology Associates of Dayton.

During jury selection, Price’s attorney made “for cause” challenges to remove four potential jurors from serving on the eight-person jury. The Court opinion referenced the potential jurors by last name only: Kerns, Vance, Walters-Sen, and Hicks.

At the beginning of jury selection, the trial judge informed the prospective jurors that Price must prove her claim by a preponderance of the evidence, a standard commonly used in civil lawsuits that is a lower burden of proof than the beyond-a-reasonable-doubt standard used in criminal cases. The judge explained the meaning of the preponderance of evidence and questioned the potential jurors whether they could accept the rules and apply them. When the judge asked whether anyone could not apply the standard, no one indicated they could not.

Attorneys Question Potential Jurors
The attorneys representing Price and the doctors were then able to question the jury pool. When Price’s attorney presented questions about the preponderance of evidence standard as the burden of proof, some of the potential jurors expressed hesitation. Walters-Sen replied that the burden seemed too low for holding a doctor liable for malpractice, and when Price’s attorney asked the others if they agreed with her, others raised their hands.

Some of the jurors responded to Price’s attorney, questioning the amount of proof needed to award Price millions of dollars in damages for mental anguish that she was seeking if the medical providers were found liable.

An attorney for the physician reminded the potential jurors that the judge had asked about their feelings about the burden of proof and asked if anyone could not follow the instructions given by the judge at the end of the case. None of the jurors indicated they could not follow the judge’s instructions.

Potential juror Hicks was asked a more pointed question. Hicks was asked whether, if the judge explained that the burden of proof was not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, he would be able to apply the law as the judge provided. Hicks responded, “I assume so.”

At the end of the questioning, Price’s attorney wanted to exclude Kerns, Vance, Walters-Sen, and Hicks. The doctors’ attorneys objected. Price’s attorney was able to dismiss Vance and Walters-Sen using preemptory challenges, which can be used to exclude a person for any reason and not just for cause. Kerns was removed from the jury for a medical reason. Hicks was the only one of the four to serve on the jury.

The jury sided with the defendants. Price appealed the verdict to the Second District, arguing that the failure to exclude the four jurors who disclosed they would not follow the law was error. The Second District affirmed the trial court’s decision, and Price appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Jury Dismissal Rules
R.C. 2313.17(B) provides a list of “good cause” challenges to exclude a person from serving as a juror. R.C. 2313.17(B)(9) is considered a good cause challenge when a person “discloses by the person’s answers” that the person cannot be fair or impartial or will not follow the law as given by the court.

Justice Deters explained the law labels the good cause challenges in R.C. 2313.17(B) as “principal challenges,” and R.C. 2313.17(C) states that the validity of principal challenges shall be “tried by the court.” He wrote that the Court has found that if the facts support a principal challenge, then the trial court must disqualify the person from the jury.

Price was correct in disputing the Second District’s conclusion that the judge had the discretion to retain the four potential jurors, the opinion stated. Under the law, the trial court has no discretion with respect to valid principal challenges, the Court concluded.

The Court noted that the Second District relied on the Court’s 1990 Berk v. Matthews and 2007 Hall v. Banc One Mgt. Corp. decisions to conclude that the trial judge had discretion. Those decisions did not “adhere to the plain language of the statute,” the Court concluded.

Trial Court Evaluates Validity of Challenge
The Court found that the requirement that a challenge be “tried by the court” meant that a trial court must examine the validity of the challenge. A juror must be disqualified if the prospective juror’s answers disclose that the allegation of partiality or inability to follow the law is true, the opinion explained.

The trial court must consider all the potential jurors’ answers, not just one answer to a question, the Court wrote. The opinion stated that some questions by attorneys to the jurors may be confusing or misleading.

“A prospective juror’s answers that cast doubt on his or her ability to be fair or impartial or willingness to follow the law may spring from those causes, rather than from any bias on the part of the prospective juror,” the opinion explained. “And a prospective juror’s answers to questions asked later in the jury-selection process may demonstrate that the prospective juror will be fair and impartial and follow the law as instructed by the court.”

The Court considered the responses to all of the questions posed to Kerns, Vance, Walters-Sen, and Hicks and concluded that the trial judge reached the proper decision that the challenges were not valid.

2024-1373. Estate of Price v. Kidney Care Specialists, LLC, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-4270.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Communications for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.