Clark v. Nenna

Clark v. Nenna arose out of a surgical procedure that the defendant performed on the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged emotional distress caused by the defendant’s professional negligence, i.e., failure to remove surgical washers from the plaintiff’s leg. The plaintiff did not allege that the defendant’s conduct was intentional or willful. The nature of the plaintiff’s … Read more

A.A. v. Glicken

In A.A. v. Glicken, the Superior Court held that, because Glicken did not show “good cause,” the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of an uncontested motion to seal. 

McNellis-Wallace v. Hoffman

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.

Talmadge v. Ervin

In Talmadge v. Ervin, 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 granted the defendant’s motion in lime.

Temple v. Providence Care Ctr.

In Temple v. Providence Care Ctr., the Pennsylvania 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 “manifest injustice,” notwithstanding the would-be moving party’s failure to preserve the issue.

Lageman v. Zepp

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 the patient suffered a stroke after her anesthesiologist botched a portion of her operation.

Charlton v. Troy

In Charlton v. Troy, a medical malpractice case, the Superior Court held that the plaintiffs’ use of a textbook to cross-examine a defense doctor was improper and highly prejudicial.

Cowley v. Virtua Hlth. Sys.

The plaintiff initiated a medical malpractice action after developing complications from her stay at Virtua Hospital. After nurses properly inserted 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. … Read more