In this medical negligence action, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed whether certain portions of a hospital’s credentialing file for the doctor who performed a patient’s surgery are protected from discovery. After the plaintiff suffered injuries related to complications from surgery, he claimed that the hospital’s credentialing and privileging process was inadequate and that it knew … Read more
In Mazzie v. Lehigh Valley Hosp., the defendants in a medical negligence matter appealed after a jury found in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants claimed that they should have been awarded a JNOV because the plaintiff’s expert did not testify “to a reasonable degree of medical certainty” that the defendants’ actions caused the injury. … Read more
In Povrzenwich v. Ripepi, a medical malpractice suit, Plaintiff appealed the judgment entered in her favor. Plaintiff, the verdict winner below, contended that she was entitled to a new trial limited to damages because the trial court erroneously precluded the testimony of her expert life care planner, a nurse, as to Plaintiff’s future medical expenses. … Read more
In Dockery v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hospitals, Inc., Ms. Dockery filed a medical-malpractice action in Philadelphia, although she alleged the underlying tortious conduct occurred in Delaware Co. The trial court sustained the defendants’ preliminary objections and transferred the case to Delaware Co. This permissible, interlocutory appeal of the order transferring venue followed. The appeal revolved … Read more
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
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.
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 an “affirmative misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment of the cause of death.”
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.
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.