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.
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.
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.
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
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