An evidentiary hearing set for Feb. 19 will test whether jurors in the high-profile federal case against Memphis gynecologist Dr. Sanjeev Kumar were exposed to outside influence that could shake the verdict. The proceeding comes on the heels of a January jury decision that convicted Kumar on most counts in a sweeping indictment accusing him of unsafe reuse and mislabeling of medical devices. Kumar has moved for a new trial and remains on the court’s calendar ahead of an April sentencing date.
According to Action News 5, the Feb. 19 hearing will decide whether the court should order a formal Remmer hearing, an evidentiary step used to probe extraneous influence on jurors, after Kumar filed a motion for a new trial that challenges both press coverage and the sufficiency of the evidence. The station reports Kumar is 45 and says his motion asks the judge to examine whether publicity or outside contacts may have affected the jury.
In January, a federal jury found Kumar guilty on 40 of 46 federal counts, including 18 counts of adulteration of medical devices, 16 counts of misbranding reprocessed single-use devices, and six counts of health care fraud, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Sentencing is scheduled for April 9, 2026, and prosecutors note that the statutory maximum penalties on the fraud and device counts could add up to decades in federal prison.
"Kumar billed more than $41 million for the hysteroscopy with biopsy procedures between September 2019 and April 2024," the Justice Department reported. Prosecutors told jurors that Kumar and his staff performed more than 15,000 hysteroscopies on 5,559 Medicare and Medicaid patients, and trial evidence showed he purchased fewer than 200 new single-use hysteroscopes during that period, while some single-use graspers bought in 2019 were still in use in 2024.
What a Remmer hearing really does
A Remmer hearing is triggered when a defendant makes a colorable allegation that jurors were exposed to outside information, and it allows the court to dig into both the circumstances and the impact of that contact. The proceeding gives the defense a chance to prove actual juror bias and helps the judge decide whether any improper contact was serious enough to justify a new trial.
Courts in this circuit have emphasized that such hearings are meant to examine the "circumstances, the impact … and whether or not it was prejudicial," providing a structured setting to test claims of outside influence, as reflected in an opinion posted by Justia.
Victim outreach and what comes next
Federal investigators have said there could be additional victims, and the FBI has posted a public page seeking patient information in the case. The HHS Office of Inspector General and the Food and Drug Administration’s criminal investigators were among the agencies involved in the probe, underscoring its multi-agency scope, according to HHS-OIG.
The Feb. 19 hearing is expected to be narrowly focused, essentially a legal warmup that could expand only if the court finds credible signs of juror influence. If the judge orders a full Remmer hearing, jurors could be questioned on the record, and the court would then weigh whether any outside contact tainted the original trial.
Barring that turn, sentencing on April 9 remains the next big date in a case that has already raised broad questions about device handling, billing practices, and patient safety, as reported by Action News 5.
