A January 2026 decision protects patients’ right to a fair trial avoiding jury bias
If you’ve been injured by medical negligence, you deserve a fair trial—not one stacked with people who work for the insurance company defending the doctor. Jury bias has no place in a Georgia medical malpractice case.
In January 2026, the Georgia Court of Appeals issued an important decision reaffirming that basic principle. The ruling makes clear that attorneys who regularly defend doctors for the same insurance company involved in a case cannot sit on a medical malpractice jury.
That may sound like common sense. But it had to be enforced—because it was ignored.
What Happened in Hoffman v. Southeastern OB/GYN
In Hoffman v. Southeastern OB/GYN Center, LLC, the plaintiff challenged a juror who was an attorney actively defending doctors insured by MAG Mutual Insurance Company—the very insurer defending the doctors in the case.
This wasn’t a remote connection.
- The juror earned about 40% of his income defending MAG Mutual’s insured doctors
- His law firm received “plenty” of business from MAG Mutual
- He admitted he had a“large potential for bias”
- He openly worried aboutnegative consequences at work if he served on a jury that ruled against the insurer
Despite these admissions, the trial court refused to remove him for cause. The plaintiff was forced to waste a limited peremptory strike to remove a juror who never should have been on the panel in the first place.
The Court of Appeals reversed the verdict and ordered a new trial.
Why Jury Bias Matters to Injured Patients
You Are Entitled to 24 Impartial Jurors
Georgia law guarantees civil litigants a full panel of 24 competent and impartial jurors. That matters because peremptory strikes are limited.
When a judge forces a plaintiff to use those strikes to remove jurors who are clearly biased or financially conflicted, the plaintiff loses the ability to remove other questionable jurors.
As Georgia courts have said for nearly 150 years, that leaves the injured party with only a “mere fragment” of their rights.
When Insurance Company Money Is Involved, Bias Isn’t Hypothetical
The Court of Appeals recognized what most people instinctively understand:
Insurance companies hire defense lawyers. They decide who gets work. They control strategy. And they determine which lawyers get future cases.
An attorney who depends on that insurer for a substantial portion of his income cannot be neutral when that insurer’s interests are on the line.
That juror faces a real conflict:
- Rule against the insurance company—and risk losing future work
- Or protect the company that pays a large share of your bills
Georgia law does not require injured patients to accept that risk.
“Rehabilitation” Doesn’t Fix Financial Bias
The trial court tried to “rehabilitate” the juror by asking whether he could be fair and follow his oath as an attorney. Unsurprisingly, he said yes.
The Court of Appeals rejected that approach.
A juror’s promise to be impartial does not erase:
- Economic dependence on the insurer
- Insider knowledge of defense strategies
- Familiarity with repeat defense experts
- The real-world consequences of ruling against a primary source of income
Courts cannot fix structural bias with leading questions.
Why This Error Required a New Trial
The defense argued that no harm occurred because the biased juror did not ultimately serve.
The Court of Appeals firmly disagreed.
In civil cases, forcing a party to use peremptory strikes on jurors who should have been removed for cause is presumed harmful error. That rule has existed in Georgia since the 1800s.
Patients should not have to “spend” their jury strikes cleaning up the court’s mistakes.
What This Means for Your Medical Malpractice Case
This decision sends a clear message in jury bias:
Trial courts must err on the side of protecting fairness, not salvaging conflicted jurors.
Jurors should be removed for cause when they:
- Work for a defendant’s insurer
- Derive substantial income from an insurer or party
- Have ongoing business relationships tied to the verdict
- Face economic consequences based on the outcome
- Possess insider knowledge of defense strategies or experts
Why Experienced Medical Malpractice Lawyers Matter
Jury selection is not a formality—it’s where fairness is won or lost.
An experienced medical malpractice lawyer knows how to:
- Identify disqualifying insurance relationships
- Ask the right questions during voir dire
- Challenge biased jurors for cause
- Preserve errors when trial courts get it wrong
At Bell Law Firm, we have spent years protecting injured Georgians’ right to fair trials before impartial juries. We understand how medical malpractice insurers operate—and we know how to push back.
If medical negligence has harmed you or someone you love, contact Bell Law Firm for a free consultation. Your right to justice should never depend on whether an insurance company’s lawyer gets a seat on the jury.