The Appellate Division ruled in McNellis-Wallace v. Hoffman that a malpractice attorney could not sustain a claim against successor attorneys for contribution and indemnification where the original attorney negligently failed to serve proper 90-day notice against a public employee under the state’s Tort’s Claim Act.
The Superior Court reversed the trial court’s order, which granted summary judgment, ruling that the plaintiff was entitled to equitable tolling of the statute of limitations based on “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment of the cause of death.”
The Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial, finding that, because the defendant did not properly preserve an objection during a deposition, the trial court erred when it had granted the defendant’s motion in lime.
The Supreme Court held that a trial court has the authority to halt proceedings and sua sponte order a mistrial only where there is “exceedingly clear error” that results in a “manifest injustice”, notwithstanding the would-be moving party’s failure to preserve the issue.
In a case that could come straight out of a law school torts exam, a divided Superior Court ruled in Lageman v. Zepp that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff’s request for a res ipsa loqitur jury charge where a patient suffered a stroke after her anesthesiologist botched his portion of her operation.
In this medical malpractice case, the Superior Court vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial. The Court held that the plaintiffs’ use of a textbook to cross-examine a defense doctor was improper and highly prejudicial.
The plaintiff was injured during birth. She was born at Sharon Regional Health center under the care of Dr. John Gallagher. Her family retained counsel to pursue a tort claim against the hospital. The attorney wanted to wait to learn more about the injury and how it developed, and he intended to rely on 18 … Read more
Plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice after developing complications from her stay at Virtua Hospital. After nurses properly insterted a feeding tube into the plaintiff, the plaintiff removed the tube and refused attempts to reinsert it. She claimed that the nurses’ failure to reinsert the tube constituted a breach of a duty of care. But plaintiff … Read more
#CivilLaw #MedMal #ExpertTestimony 04/28/2020- Rolon, as the administrator of the estate of Maria Sanchez-Rodriguez, filed med mal action against Davies as well as others, alleging the defendants’ negligence led to the death of his wife, Ms. Sanchez-Ridriguez. The jury returned a verdict for the defendants, and Rolon appealed. The Superior Court affirmed in part and … Read more
In this medical malpractice suit, the defendant hospital Wilkes-Barre General Hospital sought to protect certain reports made in the wake of the botched medical procedure. The hospital claimed that the reports were privileged pursuant to the Patient Safety Quality Improvement Act and the Peer Review Protection Act. The trial court disagreed and ordered the materials … Read more