Focus Group Footage

This footage was recorded during a live focus group presentation in New York in March 2012 for the New York chapter of the American Society for Healthcare and Risk Management (ASHRM). If your organization is interested in sponsoring a similar presentation, for which attendees will earn CLE credit, please contact Senior Vice President Claire Luna at cluna@juryimpact.net or 714.754.1010.

During this focus group, jurors discussed a case involving a woman who suffered permanent neurological injuries during the labor and delivery of her first child. The plaintiffs claimed these injuries stemmed from poor medication management and inappropriate resuscitation response. The defense claimed the mother was injured as the result of the unfortunate but unpreventable and rare condition of amniotic fluid embolism (AFE), during which amniotic fluid enters the mother’s bloodstream and triggers an allergic reaction and cardiorespiratory collapse.

Predispositions

Each focus group starts with an introduction by the moderator and a discussion of salient personal experiences and predispositions to better understand jurors’ jurisdiction-specific perspectives. For these focus groups in New York, we asked jurors about local healthcare, experience and knowledge of the labor and delivery drug Pitocin, and the risks of childbirth for the mother.

Juror experiences shape their views on a case, which is why we believe it imperative to gauge these attitudes from the outset.

Case Summary

After reading the two-page Case Summary outlining the neutral fact pattern, jurors had a significant number of questions, and their comments revealed several misconceptions that, if unaddressed at trial, would likely benefit the plaintiff. These misconceptions included the appropriate dosage and purpose of Pitocin and resuscitation protocol.

Following a one-hour discussion (truncated due to the abbreviated nature of the presentation), the moderator took an initial vote. Six jurors sided with the plaintiff, and six with the defense. The plaintiff-minded jurors focused on the Pitocin management, “red flags” of distress, and delays in delivery. Defense-leaning participants believed the defense’s story that the AFE was unpreventable and caregivers responded reasonably.

During this discussion, the moderator’s computer screen is visible, showing the interaction between him and the lead analyst for the case. In this case, the moderator is Vice President of Research Todd Fairbanks and the lead analyst Claire Luna, and the “backroom” of 100 presentation attendees of the presentation contributed questions, medical knowledge and direction to this discussion.

Plantiff Arguments

Several arguments presenting the plaintiff’s themes in an isolated manner were read to the jurors, who scored them with dials based on their effectiveness. These arguments switched four jurors to side with the plaintiff.

Defense Arguments

The defense then presented its arguments, several of which focused on the medical evidence about AFE. This information prompted three jurors to switch their votes back to the defense, almost mirroring their initial leanings. Their comments are consistent with our findings that one or two key numbers can be extremely compelling to jurors and “arm the defense’s advocates” with arguments that will resonate during deliberations.