Whether the plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by seating a juror whose brother had been successfully treated by, and whose mother had been 'very close' with, one of the defendant cancer doctors

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner sued the cancer doctors who failed to disclose to his mother both the risks of her recommended Hodgkin’s lymphoma chemotherapy treatment and the existence of a safer alternative— omissions that caused the mother to proceed with a treatment protocol that led to her death from a treatment side effect called bleomycin lung toxicity. During jury selection, the trial court learned two different venire panelists had immediate family members who were current and former patients, respectively, of a defendant doctor. Both said they could be fair and petitioner did not move to strike, so the trial court permitted voir dire to continue without proactively removing either panelist from the jury venire. The panelist whose brother had been successfully treated—who also said his mother had been “very close” with the defendant doctor—was seated on the jury, which found for defendants. Two questions are presented: 1. Whether, in a case about medical negligence, the plaintiffs Fourteenth Amendment right to due process was violated by seating a juror whose brother had been successfully treated by, and whose mother had been “very close” with, one of the defendant cancer doctors. 2. Whether providing a fair jury-selection process under the Fourteenth Amendment required the trial court to excuse sua sponte all jury venire panelists whose immediate family members were current or former patients of one of the defendant doctors.