Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
186 results for '* topic:"Medical Malpractice"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-05-02
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Montgomery County
Judge: Judge Saltz
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0384
The court found that the notes made by a hospital employee were not protected by the confidentiality provisions of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act because they were not made for the sole purpose of complying with the patient safety reporting requirements of the MCARE Act. Motion granted.
Publication Date: 2022-03-28
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Middle
Judge: District Judge Mehalchick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0340
Expert's reference to the "standard of care" need not be excluded from testimony where it was frequently used in the medical profession in connection with failure to obtain informed consent and was not likely to confuse jury between negligence and lack of consent. Defendants' motion in limine denied in part and granted in part.
Publication Date: 2022-03-14
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County
Judge: Judge Shreeves-Johns
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0205
In this Rule 1925(a) opinion, the court determined that it did not err when it held that that the statute of limitations against defendant hospital and its physicians began to run when plaintiff became aware of her lung cancer diagnosis and that plaintiff filed her complaint after the expiration of the statute of limitations. The court sought affirmance.
Publication Date: 2022-03-07
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Stevens
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0251
Dismissal of complaint for untimely service affirmed where plaintiff made no diligent efforts to attempt alternative means of service or inform the trial court of the difficulty of serving defendant. Order of the trial court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2022-03-07
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
Judge: Judge Zulick
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0151
The court held that a genuine issue of material fact existed relating to the existence of a specialist consultation policy at the defendant hospital. Motion for summary judgment denied.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors:
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-03-07
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lycoming County
Judge: Judge Tira
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0147
The court sustained plaintiff's preliminary objections to defendant's new matter for lack of factual specificity where it alleged the claim was time-barred and that there was an intervening cause. The court also sustained objections to allegations that were not proper affirmative defenses such as the collateral source rule. Finally, the court overruled plaintiffs' objection to defendant's allegation that consent was given, finding that the allegation contained sufficient facts. Objections sustained in part, overruled in part.
Publication Date: 2022-01-17
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
Judge: Judge Williamson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 21-1525
The court held that plaintiff's complaint, which alleged dates of care, places of care, identified several defendant providers by name and averred that certain agents of defendant hospital and medical group were unknown to plaintiff but known to defendants, possessed sufficient specificity to withstand defendants' preliminary objection. Additionally, plaintiff's claim of corporate negligence directed to defendant physician group and health network did not fail under Pa.R.Civ.P. 1028 (a)(4) because the allegations established that the
Publication Date: 2022-01-17
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Wecht
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0040
After presenting some direct evidence of negligence, a medical malpractice plaintiff was not precluded from also receiving a res ipsa loquitur jury instruction after presenting substantial circumstantial evidence of the doctor's negligence. Order of the superior court affirmed.
Publication Date: 2022-01-10
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Donohue
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0014
Pleadings unlawfully filed by non-attorneys did not implicate the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court, but were still voidable in the discretion of the trial court following notice and opportunity to cure. Order of the superior court reversed, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2022-01-10
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Supreme Court
Judge: Justice Mundy
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0003
Superior court erred in affirming trial court's grant of a new trial based on one question for which trial court gave a curative instruction and court found superior court's reliance on Siegal v. Stefanyszyn, 718 A.2d 1274, was misplaced and trial court did not view the question in the context of the entire trial when evaluating appellee's post-trial motion for a new trial. Reversed.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read