A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a new trial is not warranted in a medical malpractice case where a juror disclosed after the verdict was rendered that he had a past interaction with the defendant doctor.

The appeals court found there was no evidence the juror was influenced by his earlier dealing with the doctor, and upheld the trial judge’s ruling denying the plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial. Although the appeals court was obligated to make its own determination on whether the jury verdict was a miscarriage of justice, that inquiry necessarily relied on the trial judge’s feel of the case, the panel said.