According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs alleged that a Defendant doctor performed a surgical procedure that was not indicated according to the standard of care.
The trial court granted summary judgment after the Defendants had argued that the only claims that were supported by the Plaintiff's experts were those concerning informed consent surgery. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff had not pled informed consent claims against the Defendants.
The Superior Court noted that, essentially, the trial court had concluded that the Plaintiff's claims were in the form of a batter involving lack of informed consent regarding the surgery and treatment, and not negligence, and, on that basis, the trial court had entered summary judgment.
In reviewing the case before it, the Superior Court found issues of fact that precluded the entry of summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.
As part of its decision, the appellate court directed the trial court to revisit its determination that a gastroenterologist was to qualified to render an expert opinion on the care provided by a colorectal surgeon. The trial court was advised to review the section of the MCARE Act outlining qualificatons of experts in medical malpractice cases as found under 40 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1303.512 ("Section 512").
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Feb. 18, 2025).
As part of its decision, the appellate court directed the trial court to revisit its determination that a gastroenterologist was to qualified to render an expert opinion on the care provided by a colorectal surgeon. The trial court was advised to review the section of the MCARE Act outlining qualificatons of experts in medical malpractice cases as found under 40 Pa.C.S.A. Section 1303.512 ("Section 512").
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “The Legal Intelligencer State Appellate Case Alert,” www.Law.com (Feb. 18, 2025).