Bifurcated Trials For Medical Malpractice Cases
Maryland
Green v. N. Arundel Hosp. Association, Inc. , 366 Md. 597, 785 A. 2d 361 (2001)
Although a party has a right to be present at trial, that right is not absolute. There are factors that may lead a court to determine that the mere presence of a party holds no purpose other than a prejudicial effect. In the liability phase of a bifurcated medical malpractice case, the court has discretion to exclude a plaintiff from the courtroom where, after a hearing and observing the plaintiff in person or by other reliable means, the court determines that: (1) plaintiff is severely injured; (2) he attributes his injuries to the defendant’s conduct; (3) his presence in the courtroom may cause the jury to side with him out of emotional sympathy rather than on the evidence; (4) he cannot communicate or participate in the trial in any meaningful way; and (5) he would be unable to understand the proceeding.
Federal
Ciena Corp. v. Corvis Corp. , 210 F. R. D. 519 (2002)
Bifurcation to separate liability and damages phases was appropriate to reduce the number of legal principles the jury had to consider and apply. When deciding whether to bifurcate a trial, courts should consider if it would avoid prejudice, conserve judicial resources, and enhance juror comprehension of the issues presented.
In re Bendectin Litigation, 857 F. 2d 290 (1988)
The Court of Appeals found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in trifurcating the issues. The principal purpose of Rule 42(b) is to enable the trial judge to dispose of a case in a way that advances judicial efficiency and is fair to the parties. Narrowing the range of inquiry substantially improved the manageability of the case and enhanced the jury’s ability to comprehend the issues. Courts also permit separate trials when the first issue tried may dispose of the entire case.
