# Bruckshaw v. Frankford Hospital of the Philadelphia

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 18, 2012 · 619 Pa. 135

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966587

## Case

- **Full name:** Thomas BRUCKSHAW, as Administrator of the Estate of Patricia Bruckshaw and Thomas Bruckshaw, In His Own Right as Husband of the Decedent Patricia Bruckshaw v. The FRANKFORD HOSPITAL OF the CITY OF PHILADELPHIA and The Frankford Hospital of the City of Philadelphia t/a Frankford Hospital Torresdale Division and Frankford Healthcare System, Inc. and Jefferson Health System, Inc. and Brian P. Priest, M.D. and Randy Metcalf, M.D.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 18, 2012
- **Citations:** 619 Pa. 135; 58 A.3d 102; 2012 Pa. LEXIS 2909
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Castille
- **Judges:** Baer, Castille, Eakin, Files, McCaffery, Melvin, Saylor, Todd
- **Cited by:** 51 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966587

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing constitutional right to jury trial in both civil and criminal cases
- noting, inter alia, that Bradley “eliminated a presumption of prejudice in a case involving unauthorized contact between a judge and the jury.”
- recognizing “established precedent that once a principal juror is seated and sworn, that juror cannot be removed without good cause on the record”
- stating, “[t]he decision to remove a juror because of inability to perform the usual - 12 - J-A29016-25 functions and to seat an alternate juror is within the sound discretion of the trial court”
- recognizing Bradley Court “warned the trial bench that ‘failure to maintain an accurate and reviewable contemporaneous record of . . . communications between the court and a jury may force an implication of prejudice where arguably none exists’”

## Opinion text

Chief Justice CASTILLE,
concurring.
I join Part I of the Majority Opinion, and concur in the result the majority achieves. I would, however, stress the subtle but important point that, in assessing the “error” or “errors” of the trial judge here, there is error in the juror substitution only insofar as the court officer’s actions here are attributable to the trial court; it is only for that reason that we may properly consider whether the trial court’s errors, in the multiple, “require a new trial.” Majority Op. at 113. Of course, trial jurists are no more omniscient than appellate jurists; it is the trial court’s post-verdict reaction to the juror substitution issue, once the fact became known, that is the actually erroneous decision in this case, since the court and the parties apparently were unaware of the court officer’s actions until after the verdict was rendered. Moreover, because I believe Part I of the Majority Opinion adequately disposes of the issue before us, I do not join Part II of the opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4966587. Public record. Not legal advice.