DENNIS PRINGLE AND CHRISTINE A. PRINGLE, in their own right as parentand natural guardians of Austin Pringle, a minor v. ADOLFO RAPAPORT, D.O.

DENNIS PRINGLE AND CHRISTINE A. PRINGLE, in their own right as parentand natural guardians of Austin Pringle, a minor v. ADOLFO RAPAPORT, D.O. and ADOLFO RAPAPORT, D.O., P.C. No. 173 WDA 2007 2009 PA Super 171 Atlantic: 980 A.2d 159 Filed: 8/31/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment entered January 4, 2007, Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County, Civil Division at No. 2003-624-CD
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., STEVENS, MUSMANNO, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, GANTMAN, PANELLA and DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Dennis Pringle and Christine Pringle (collectively, “the Pringles”), in their own right as parents and natural guardians of their son Austin Pringle (“Austin”), appeal from the judgment entered following a jury verdict in a medical malpractice case in favor of appellees, Adolfo Rapaport, D.O., and Adolfo Rapaport, D.O., P.C. (collectively, “Dr. Rapaport”). The Pringles contend that the trial court erred, inter alia, in including an “error of judgment” instruction during the charge to the jury at the trial of their medical malpractice action against Dr. Rapaport. After an exhaustive review of decisional law, we conclude that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has never addressed the appropriateness of this charge, and that the decisions of panels of this Court are irreconcilable. Thus, following our careful review, we conclude that the “error of judgment” instruction should not be given in medical malpractice actions, as it does not inform jurors on the applicable standard of care and instead tends only to confuse, rather than clarify, the issues the jury must decide. We thus reverse and remand for a new trial.

-----------------------------------------------------
Want 50 state & federal case law? - click here