JOAN P. WHITAKER AND BARBARA V. LEEZER, GUARDIANS AD LITEM FOR CAROLINE MONAGHAN vs. THE FRANKFORD HOSPITAL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

JOAN P. WHITAKER AND BARBARA V. LEEZER, GUARDIANS AD LITEM FOR CAROLINE MONAGHAN vs. THE FRANKFORD HOSPITAL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA D/B/A FRANKFORD HOSPITAL—FRANKFORD, THE FRANKFORD HOSPITAL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA D/B/A FRANKFORD HOSPITAL—TORRESDALE, ROBERT T. SMITH, M.D., HAROLD J. GAUTHIER, M.D. AND DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC., APPEAL OF: ROBERT T. SMITH, M.D. (at 819 EDA 2006) CAROLINE MONAGHAN vs. FRANKFORD HOSPITAL, FRANKFORD DIVISION, FRANKFORD HOSPITAL TORRESDAKE DIVISION, CARL S. RUBIN, D.O., MEDICAL IMAGING ASSOCIATES, HOSPITAL MEDCIAL IMAGING, INC., ROBERT T. SMITH, M.D., NORTHEAST PHILADELPHIA VASCULAR SURGEONS, P.C., FAROUQ A. SAMHOURI, M.D., HAROLD J. GAUTHIER, M.D., ABC EMERGENCY ROOM SERVICES CORP., MICHAEL J. ROSNER, M.D., JOSEPH NABONG, M.D., NEUROCARE DIAGNOSTICS, INC., AND RANDY M. ROSENBERG, M.D. APPEAL OF: DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING, INC. (at 933 EDA 2006) No. 819 and 933 EDA 2006 2009 PA Super 216 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 11/12/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 28, 2006, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at No. 0202-01557 and February Term, 2002, No. 1557.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BOWES, and DONOHUE, JJ.
Opinion by: BOWES, J.
Appellants, Diagnostic Imaging, Inc. and its agent Dr. Robert T. Smith, appeal from the judgment entered on a jury verdict in this medical malpractice action. The verdict was entered in favor of the plaintiffs, Appellees Joan P. Whitaker and Barbara V. Leezer, in their capacity as guardians ad litem for Caroline Monaghan. The jury determined that Dr. Smith and Dr. Harold J. Gauthier, who had previously settled with Appellees, were equally responsible for causing the injuries at issue in this case, and it awarded $5,200,000 in damages. After careful review of the record and the arguments presented on appeal, we affirm.

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

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

GABRIEL G. OCASIO v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES

GABRIEL G. OCASIO v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES No. 2002 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 136 Atlantic: 979 A.2d 352 Filed: 7/17/2009
	Appeal from the Order October 27, 2008, In the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, Civil Division at No. 1020 Civil 2008.
Before: LALLY-GREEN, FREEDBERG, and POPOVICH, JJ.
Opinion by: POPOVICH, J.
Gabriel G. Ocasio appeals from the October 27, 2008 order entered in the Court of Common Pleas, Somerset County, which denied his petition to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed his complaint with prejudice as being frivolous. Upon review, we affirm.

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

CAROL HYRCZA, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET MAHUNIK, DECEASED, v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL;

CAROL HYRCZA, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET MAHUNIK, DECEASED, v. WEST PENN ALLEGHENY HEALTH SYSTEM, INC.; ALLEGHENY GENERAL HOSPITAL; SUBURBAN GENERAL HOSPITAL CO., INC.; SUBURBAN GENERAL HOSPITAL; ALLEGHENY INTEGRATED HEALTH GROUP; CRANBERRY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES; WEXFORD MEDICAL PRACTICE; HILLARY A. STROUD, M.D.; BRUCE E. CONWAY, M.D.; HEALTH SOUTH CORPORATION; CHOICECARE PHYSICIANS, P.C.; YVETTE C. ROSS HEBRON, M.D.; ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGISTS-UPMC; ASSOCIATED NEUROLOGISTS, INC.; HASSAN HASSORI, M.D.; and JONATHAN E. ARTZ, M.D. APPEAL OF: YVETTE C. ROSS HEBRON, M.D. CHOICECARE PHYSICIANS, P.C. No. 135 and 136 WDA 2008 2009 PA Super 119 Atlantic: n/a Petition for Reargument Denied 9/11/2009 Filed: 7/1/2009
	Appeal from the Judgment entered January 3, 2008, Court of Common Pleas, Allegheny County, Civil Division at No. GD-03-010989
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., DONOHUE and COLVILLE*, JJ.
Opinion by: DONOHUE, J.
Yvette C. Ross Hebron, M.D. (“Dr. Hebron”) and ChoiceCare Physicians, P.C. (“ChoiceCare”) (collectively, “Appellants”) appeal from the January 3, 2008 order entering a judgment in the amount of approximately $8.6 million on a jury verdict in favor of Carol Hyrcza (“Hyrcza”), executrix of the estate of Margaret Mahunik (“the Decedent”), and against Appellants. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

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

Superior Court - DAVID THIERFELDER AND JOANNE THIERFELDER, H/W v. IRWIN WOLFERT, M.D., AND MEDICAL CENTER AT GWYNEDD AND ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

DAVID THIERFELDER AND JOANNE THIERFELDER, H/W v. IRWIN WOLFERT, M.D., AND MEDICAL CENTER AT GWYNEDD AND ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL No. 571 EDA 2007 2009 PA Super 92 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/19/2009
	Appeal from the Order entered February 5, 2007 In the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil, No. 04-03111 (consolidated with 03-11978)
Before: FORD ELLIOTT, P.J., and STEVENS, ORIE MELVIN, LALLY-GREEN, KLEIN, BOWES, PANELLA, DONOHUE and SHOGAN, JJ.
Opinion by: KLEIN, J.
Dissenting Opinion by: LALLY-GREEN, J.
Joanne Thierfelder (Wife/Joanne) appeals from an order sustaining preliminary objections and dismissing claims against Irwin Wolfert, M.D. Wife’s complaint essentially alleged that Dr. Wolfert acted negligently when he had a consensual sexual relationship with her for one year while she was his patient and being treated by him for anxiety and depression. As a result of that affair, Wife claimed that she suffered and will continue to suffer significant psychological harm. Because it is alleged that Dr. Wolfert, although a general practitioner, was rendering psychological care to Joanne, we believe that she has a cause of action and therefore reverse the grant of preliminary objections.

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

Superior Court 7/25/08 - ROBIN M. WYTIAZ AND KEITH WYTIAZ, HER HUSBAND v. DAVID J. DEITRICK, D.O., MERCY PRIMARY CARE, INC., KHALILI NOORBAKHSH AND DE

ROBIN M. WYTIAZ AND KEITH WYTIAZ, HER HUSBAND v. DAVID J. DEITRICK, D.O., MERCY PRIMARY CARE, INC., KHALILI NOORBAKHSH AND DEITRICK METROPOLITAN OBSTETRIC GYNECOLOGY ASSOCIATES, INC.
No. 1219 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 165 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 7/25/2008
Appeal from the Judgment entered June 12, 2007 in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Civil Division, at No. GD06-2688.
Before: ORIE MELVIN, BENDER and ALLEN, JJ.
Opinion by: ORIE MELVIN, J.
Appellants, Robin and Keith Wytiaz, appeal from the judgment entered following a jury verdict in favor of the defense in this medical malpractice action. Appellants claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and that they were denied a fair trial. After careful review, we affirm.

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

Superior Court 5/19/08 - RITA GRIFFIN, AN INDIVIDUAL v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER-BRADDOCK HOSPITAL

RITA GRIFFIN, AN INDIVIDUAL v. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH MEDICAL CENTER-BRADDOCK HOSPITAL
No. 544 WDA 2007 2008 PA Super 104 Atlantic: n/a Filed: 5/19/2008
Appeal from the Order February 27, 2007In the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny CountyCivil Division at No. GD No. 04-016870
Before: BENDER, BOWES and TAMILIA, JJ.
Opinion by: BENDER, J.
The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center – Braddock Hospital (“Hospital”) appeals from the judgment entered in favor of Rita Griffin following a jury trial in this medical malpractice case. For the following reasons, we reverse.


Hospital sets forth the following “Statement of the Questions Involved”
in its brief pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 2116(a):

I. WHETHER JUDGMENT NOTWITHSTANDING THE VERDICT MUST BE GRANTED TO DEFENDANT WHERE PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT OFFERED HIS CAUSATION OPINION WITH 51 PERCENT PROBABILITY, THUS FAILING TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE DEGREE OF MEDICAL CERTAINTY; AND WHERE THE ONLY POTENTIAL FACTUAL BASIS TO SUPPORT PLAINTIFF’S CAUSATION THEORY WAS A HEARSAY NOTE RULED INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL, THUS RENDERING PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT’S PRE-RECORDED DEPOSITION TESTIMONY LACKING IN FOUNDATION?

II. WHETHER, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, A NEW TRIAL MUST BE GRANTED WHERE THE TRIAL COURT CHARGED THE JURY ON RES IPSA LOQUITUR, EVEN THOUGH PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE INJURY AS ONE WHICH WOULD NOT OCCUR ABSENT NEGLIGENCE; FAILED TO ELIMINATE OTHER POSSIBLE CAUSES; AND
ADDITIONALLY OFFERED A SPECIFIC THORY OF NEGLIGENCE?

III. WHETHER, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, REMITTITUR MUST BE GRANTED WHERE THE JURY VERDICT DEVIATED SUBSTANTIALLY FROM WHAT COULD BE REASONABLE
COMPENSATION?