A judge told St. Petersburg, Fla.-based Johns Hopkins All Children's Hospital it would not decide on a retrial for its lawsuit case that was brought to light in a Netflix documentary until after the holidays, Fox 13 News reported.
Johns Hopkins returned to court Dec. 15 demanding a retrial after a jury ruled on Nov. 9 that the hospital must pay the Kowalski family $211 million.
The November verdict concluded that Johns Hopkins had falsely imprisoned then 10-year old Maya Kowalski, engaged in fraudulent billing practices toward her family, inflicted severe emotional distress, and that a social worker Catherine Bedy had committed battery against her.
The family of 17-year-old Maya Kowalski had sued the hospital after it reported her mother, Beata, for suspected child abuse in 2016 after she requested ketamine to treat her daughter for chronic pain. The girl was removed by the state and sheltered at the hospital for three months, a time during which Beata Kowalski died by suicide. The Netflix documentary "Take Care of Maya," released in June, was viewed nearly 14 million times in the first two weeks.
Legal representatives for the hospital have submitted multiple motions asserting instances of juror misconduct and bias. The latest motion filed by the hospital contends that a juror had prejudice against Johns Hopkins and its witness, Sally Smith, MD, a now retired physician for Child Protective Services.
According to the hospital's defense team, a juror incorporated a Nazi symbol in his notes when mentioning Dr. Smith. Attorneys from Johns Hopkins claim that the juror spelled her name using sharply shaped "S's" resembling those associated with the Nazi SS.
"Printing the first letter of Dr. Smith's first and last name in this manner makes clear Juror No. 1's bias and prejudice against Dr. Smith (and thus Defendant), equating Dr. Smith with a notorious Nazi organization," the legal team for the hospital wrote in their demand for a retrial.
The attorneys representing the Kowalskis dismiss the accusation as an "inflammatory" and "desperate" effort to smear the reputation of a juror, asserting that the juror did not engage in any wrongdoing.
A previous motion from Johns Hopkins filed Nov. 22 also alleges that the juror shared trial information with his spouse, who purportedly proceeded to express her opinions on the case through social media.
Having heard arguments from both parties, Judge Hunter Carroll said he wouldn't issue a ruling on the motions before the Christmas holiday, but indicated that he would inform the attorneys on both sides if he opts to proceed with a juror interview. This could be decided as early as next week, according to the publication.