• DiNardo v. Kohler

    Publication Date: 2023-12-11
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Todd
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22 EAP 2022

    No felony conviction recovery rule barred mental health patient from seeking indemnification and damages arising from the patient's intentional murders. Order of the superior court affirmed.

  • Wilson v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosp.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care | Legal Services
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Schulman
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 190902017

    In a medical malpractice case, the court imposed sanctions on both parties' counsel for discovery violations. Plaintiff filed motions to reconsider sanctions, which the court denied, finding that they willfully disregarded court orders. The court attached the reasons for its order pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a).

  • Mazzuca v. Abreu

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
    Judge: Judge Carpenter
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 220901774

    Medical malpractice plaintiff appealed the court's order sustaining defendants' preliminary objections to improper venue and transferring the action to the county in which the alleged malpractice occurred. The court requested that its order be affirmed.

  • Betz v. UPMC Pinnacle W. Shore Hosp.

    Publication Date: 2023-10-02
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Bowes
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 1123 MDA 2022

    Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act's whistleblower protections did not preclude a hospital from taking steps to determine the identify of the author of an anonymous report made under the patient safety plan, where hospitals were not "appropriate authorities" bound to protect whistleblower identities under the act. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Ford-Bey v. Prof'l Anesthesia Serv.

    Publication Date: 2023-09-25
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Sullivan
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 162 EDA 2022

    Hospital could not invoke confidentiality under the Medical Care and Reduction of Error Act for documents produced during root cause analysis into potential surgical error where there was no evidence that hospital's sentinel event policy qualified as a MCARE safety plan. Order of the trial court affirmed.

  • Law Journal Press | Digital Book

    Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Rules 2024

    Authors:

    View this Book

    View more book results for the query "*"

  • Wilson v. United States

    Publication Date: 2023-09-18
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Federal Government
    Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
    Judge: Circuit Judge Chagares
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 22-1940

    District court erred in granting summary judgment to government based on the lack of an expert report in appellant prisoner's pro se medical negligence action because the Federal Tort Claims Act did not incorporate Pa.R.Civ.P. 1042.3 and appellant did not otherwise have an adequate opportunity to seek an expert or conduct discovery due to his unique position as a pro se inmate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Reversed.

  • Swart v. UPMC Pinnacle Hosp.

    Publication Date: 2023-08-21
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Dauphin County
    Judge: Judge McNally
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 2020 CV 10091 MM

    Plaintiffs appealed a court order, in which her complaint was dismissed through the grant of defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court concluded that plaintiff's medical negligence claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations.

  • McLaughlin v. Nahata

    Publication Date: 2023-08-14
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Supreme Court
    Judge: Justice Brobson
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 7 WAP 2022

    Lower courts found hospital could seek indemnity and contributions from clinic as the doctors' actual employer but court found if hospital and clinic were determined to be vicariously liable for the negligence of the doctors via principles of ostensible agency under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act and respondeat superior, hospital could obtain contribution but not indemnity from clinic because law did not permit a party that was vicariously liable in tort to obtain indemnity from another party that was vicario

  • Nigon v. Jewell

    Publication Date: 2023-08-14
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
    Judge: Judge Hodge
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 30009 OF 2019, C.A.

    Medical malpractice plaintiff appealed the court's grant of summary judgment in favor of decedent's personal care physician who was not involved in decedent's surgery and post-surgical care at a hospital. The court declared that plaintiff's appeal should be denied in its entirety.

  • Pugh v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2023-07-31
    Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
    Industry: Health Care
    Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
    Judge: District Judge Gallagher
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: 5:20-cv-00630-JMG

    Plaintiffs moved for reconsideration of court's order precluding plaintiffs' expert's opinion on the cause of plaintiffs' child's autism under Daubert and court found it analyzed the reliability of expert's methodology and found it unreliable, plaintiffs failed to show a clear error of law and court also denied plaintiffs' motion for certification of an interlocutory appeal. Motion denied.