Appeals Court Upholds Defense Verdict in Luzerne Med Mal Case
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a verdict in favor of two doctors sued by a man who claimed delays in treatment exacerbated his arthritis.
January 02, 2020 at 03:31 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania Superior Court has affirmed a verdict in favor of two doctors sued by a man who claimed delays in treatment exacerbated his arthritis.
A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Susan Peikes Gantman, Maria McLaughlin and Kate Ford Elliott upheld the judgment in favor of doctors Frank O'Brien and James Matucci and Orthopaedic Consultants of Wyoming Valley.
A Luzerne County jury found the doctors were negligent in their care of plaintiff David Cragle, but that the negligence did not cause harm to Cragle, according to McLaughlin's Dec. 20 opinion.
Cragle argued on appeal that the alleged delays in treatment, such as failure to diagnose an infection, made the arthritis in his knee worse and that the jury's verdict was against the weight of the evidence. However, the defendants presented experts who claimed nothing about the timing of treatment that would have put Cragle at increased risk for worse arthritis.
Cragle countered that the experts failed to opine on whether the infection was an injury that caused harm to the plaintiff. Cragle requested a new trial.
However, the Superior Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in holding the jury's verdict did not "shock the conscience."
"Cragle bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that appellees' negligence caused him harm," McLaughlin said. "Cragle presented minimal testimony as to causation, and appellees presented opposing testimony. The evidence presented as to causation was not so grossly one-sided as to make rejection of the weight claim an abuse of discretion."
Cragle also argued that the trial court erred by failing to give the jury adverse inference instruction, over allegedly altered medical notes, under MCARE. But the trial court ruled that Cragle waived the issue.
"We agree with the trial court that the medical record 'alteration' in this matter was not the type or degree which supported the 'adverse inference' instruction," McLaughlin said. "The jury heard the testimony regarding the medical record notes, and heard the testimony that Dr. Matucci could not explain why the note was there. The note had information concerning events that all parties agreed did not happen, but there is no contention that the remainder of the note was inaccurate or that any information was missing from the note. Under the facts of this case, we see no reason to disturb the trial court's decision."
The plaintiff is represented by Philadelphia-based Gerard Martillotti, who did not return a call seeking comment.
The defendants are represented by Ryan McBride of Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby in Scranton, who did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All3rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
Phila. Judge Upholds $68.5M Verdict Over Construction Worker's Death
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Pfizer Faces Multiple Lawsuits Over Recalled Sickle-Cell Medication
- 2Top 10 Law Firm Videos to Produce in 2025
- 3Elizabeth Cooper of Simpson Thacher on Building Teams in a 'Relationship Business'
- 4Why Hogan Lovells and Perkins Coie Reversed, Will Now Pay Out Special Bonuses to Associates
- 5Lawyer’s Resolutions: Focusing on 2025
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250