In a significant ruling, the Michigan Court of Appeals has denied Joyce Barber's request for a new trial in her medical malpractice lawsuit against orthopedic surgeon Lawrence J. Morawa, MD. The court's decision, issued on June 17, 2026, addresses concerns about juror misconduct and highlights the serious consequences of relying on artificial intelligence for legal research. The ruling underscores the importance of accurate legal citations and the responsibilities of attorneys in presenting their cases.
This case began when Barber underwent hip replacement surgery performed by Morawa at Ascension Providence Hospital in October 2020. Following the surgery, Barber filed a lawsuit claiming medical malpractice and negligence. After a five-day trial, the jury found that Morawa was not negligent, leading to Barber's motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct.
Barber's appeal stemmed from her belief that the jury's verdict was compromised by improper influences during deliberations. Specifically, she alleged that jurors had consulted outside sources and that alternate jurors had improperly participated in the deliberations. However, the trial court denied her motion, stating that Barber's claims lacked sufficient evidence and were not supported by valid affidavits.
The Michigan Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decision. The court noted that Barber's motion for a new trial relied on allegations that were not substantiated by proper evidence, stating, "Even setting aside this procedural defect, plaintiff also failed to show that any alleged irregularity affected her substantial rights." The ruling was delivered by Judge Matthew S. Ackerman, with support from Judges Stephen L. Borrello and Michael J. Kelly.
In addition to the denial of the new trial, the court addressed the conduct of Barber's attorney, who had relied on artificial intelligence to generate legal citations. The court found that this reliance led to the submission of fabricated legal authority, which violated the duty of reasonable inquiry required of attorneys. The court stated, "Counsel’s repeated submission of fabricated and unsupported authority grossly disregarded the requirements of fair presentation and violated the duty of reasonable inquiry."
The court's ruling emphasized the importance of attorneys verifying the legal authorities they cite, especially when using AI tools that can generate inaccurate information. The court noted that the attorney had previously cited nonexistent cases in earlier motions and failed to correct these errors even after being alerted to them by opposing counsel.
The ruling has significant implications for the legal community, particularly as the use of artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent in legal research and writing. The court's decision serves as a warning to attorneys about the potential pitfalls of relying too heavily on AI-generated content without proper verification. It reinforces the principle that attorneys are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of their filings and the integrity of the legal process.
The court ordered a remand to determine the actual damages and expenses incurred by Morawa due to Barber's appeal, which will be payable by Barber's attorney personally. This aspect of the ruling highlights the potential financial consequences for attorneys who fail to uphold their professional responsibilities.
As the legal landscape continues to evolve with advancements in technology, this case underscores the critical need for attorneys to maintain rigorous standards in their practice. The court's decision not only affects Barber and Morawa but also sets a precedent for how courts may handle cases involving the misuse of artificial intelligence in legal proceedings.
Looking ahead, it remains to be seen whether Barber's legal team will pursue further action or appeal the court's decision. The court did not retain jurisdiction, but it did direct the Clerk of the Court to forward the opinion to the Attorney Grievance Commission for possible investigation into the attorney's conduct.