Here’s an analysis of the appellate opinion in Vanessa Lucio v. Covenant Health System, et al., decided May 8, 2025, by the Seventh District Court of Appeals in Amarillo, Texas. You can download the court's opinion by clicking here.

Case Summary

Vanessa Lucio sued Covenant Health System, Methodist Hospital (Plainview, Texas), and two doctors for medical malpractice. At trial, the jury found that the defendants’ negligence did not cause Lucio’s injuries. Based on that, the judge entered a “take nothing” judgment—Lucio got no compensation. Lucio appealed, arguing the trial court made a mistake by not removing two jurors (Jurors 25 and 27) for cause, both of whom ended up on the jury.

Key Issues on Appeal

Lucio said the trial court should have removed Jurors 25 and 27 because:

  • Juror 27: Allegedly showed bias by saying she’d demand more than a “preponderance of the evidence” (the civil standard) to award “millions of dollars.”
  • Juror 25: Similarly expressed this attitude, and also had a work connection to the defendant hospital (her employer received referrals from Covenant Hospital), which Lucio argued created a disqualifying financial interest.

Preservation of Error

First, the court checked whether Lucio properly preserved her objection for appeal. Under Texas law, to preserve this kind of issue, you have to:

  1. Use a peremptory strike on the juror.
  2. Use up all your other strikes.
  3. Tell the court a specific, objectionable juror will stay on the jury.

The court found Lucio did all this, so her complaint was properly preserved.

Juror 27 – Bias Over Damages

  • During jury selection, Lucio’s lawyer asked if anyone would require more proof than “the greater weight of the evidence” (preponderance) to award millions. Juror 27 raised her hand.
  • Lucio’s lawyer followed up only with Juror 15 (not 27), and didn’t ask Juror 27 directly about her reasoning.
  • Defense counsel did question Juror 27. She said she understood the burden of proof and had no problem sitting on the jury.

The court’s reasoning:

  • Raising a hand in a group doesn’t prove unequivocal bias.
  • The law says a juror is disqualified only if their state of mind clearly shows they can’t be fair.
  • Since Lucio’s lawyer didn’t follow up with Juror 27 and she later said she could follow the law, her supposed bias was not established as a matter of law.
  • The trial court, being there in person, is in the best position to judge sincerity.

Result: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in keeping Juror 27.

Juror 25 – Bias and Financial Interest

  • Juror 25 also raised her hand about requiring more proof for big damages, but Lucio’s lawyer didn’t question her further.
  • Defense counsel did ask: Could she follow the court’s instructions and base her decision on the evidence? She said yes.
  • Juror 25 worked for Calvert Home Health, which got referrals from Covenant Hospital. She worried her boss might not like her ruling against Covenant but wasn’t sure if that would affect her.

On bias:

  • Since she said she could follow the law and the evidence, and the questioning was limited, the court found no unequivocal bias.

On financial interest:

  • Lucio didn’t specifically argue “financial interest” as a ground for removal at trial—only later on appeal.
  • Even if she had, the connection was too remote and speculative: It depended on the hospital withholding business from her employer and her employer punishing her for her vote. That’s not enough for disqualification.

Bottom Line

The appeals court found:

  • Lucio did preserve her complaints for review.
  • But the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the challenges for cause for either juror.
  • Juror 25’s work connection wasn’t enough to disqualify her.

The verdict stands and Lucio’s appeal is denied.

Key Takeaways

  • Raising a hand in voir dire (jury selection) is not, by itself, proof of bias.
  • Follow-up questioning is crucial if you want to show a juror can’t be fair.
  • A remote or speculative financial connection to a party is not enough to disqualify a juror in Texas.
  • Appellate courts defer heavily to the trial judge’s discretion in these matters.

Girards Law Firm pursues cases involving severe injury or wrongful death in Texas, Arkansas and Oklahoma. Please use our Chat feature at www.girardslaw.com if you'd like us to review your potential claim.

Post A Comment