Doc fights against virtual trial
When Texas cardiologist Amin Al-Ahmad’s malpractice trial was changed to a virtual format because of COVID-19 concerns, Dr. Al-Ahmad and his attorneys fought the move.
They argued that the malpractice case was too complex for a virtual format and that a video trial would deprive Dr. Al-Ahmad of his rights to due process, including the right to trial by jury.
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s case involved allegations that he had failed to promptly diagnose and treat an atrial esophageal fistula, resulting in a patient’s stroke and ongoing neurologic problems. The trial was expected to last up to 10 days. Nine witnesses were expected to testify, and $1 million in damages were at stake, according to court documents.
“The length of trial anticipated, complexity of the medical issues, the confidential medical information at issue, and the number of anticipated medical records exhibits lead to a real risk of juror ‘Zoom fatigue,’ even if the trial is not interrupted with technology glitches, such as jurors dropping off the link or sound loss,” Dr. Al-Ahmad’s attorneys wrote in a petition to the Texas Supreme Court. “The risks of forcing [the defendants] to trial through the procedure of a remote or virtual jury trial are numerous. Not least of these is the risk that [defendants’] relators will be prevented from presenting an adequate defense or being able to fully preserve error during a virtual trial.”
Another concern regards the lack of uniformity from county to county in conducting a virtual trial, said David A. Wright, an attorney for Dr. Al-Ahmad. Some counties don’t permit them, while others permit parties to opt out of virtual trials, he noted.
“Even those that hold virtual trials seem to have different procedures and rules,” he said. “Travis County, where I have tried my virtual cases, has iPads that they provide to each juror so that they are limited to using just the county iPad for the trial. Others, I have heard, permit jurors to use their own devices. There are simply no uniform rules.”
Despite requests to the trial court and petitions to the appellate and Texas Supreme Court, Dr. Al-Ahmad lost his bid to have his trial delayed until in-person trials resumed. The Texas Supreme Court in late 2021 refused to halt the virtual trial.
Dr. Al-Ahmad, based in Austin, declined to comment through his attorney. Mr. Wright said the court’s denial “was not unexpected.”
Dr. Al-Ahmad’s virtual trial went forward in October 2021, and the jury ruled in his favor.
“We were very pleased with the jury’s verdict,” Mr. Wright said.
Are virtual trials ending in higher awards?
In addition to jurors’ not taking their roles as seriously, the casual vibe of virtual trials may also be diminishing how jurors view the verdict’s magnitude.
“Virtual trials don’t have the gravity or the seriousness of a real trial,” Ms. Leedom said. “I don’t think the importance of the jury’s decision weighs on them as much during a Zoom trial as it does an in-person trial.”
Alarmingly, Ms. Leedom said that, in her experience, damages in virtual trials have been higher in comparison with damages awarded during in-person trials.
Ms. Adams agreed with this observation.
“We’ll still win cases, but we’re concerned that, in the cases we lose, the damages can be slightly higher because there hasn’t been that interpersonal connection with the defendant,” she said. “It almost becomes like monopoly money to jurors.”