Photo credit: gpointstudio/Shutterstock.com

The Pennsylvania Superior Court has upheld an order granting a new trial in a lawsuit against Einstein Medical Center after the jury found that its care of a surgical patient was negligent, but not the cause of her injury.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Mary Jane Bowes, Judith Olson and Kate Ford-Elliott denied Einstein's request to vacate a Philadelphia judge's grant of a new trial in favor of plaintiff Colleen Boyle, who was injured while recovering from knee surgery at Einstein.

According to Bowes' Feb. 14 memorandum opinion, Boyle went to Einstein for a right knee replacement. While recovering after her operation, Boyle attempted to get out of bed to use the restroom and fell. The fall reopened her wound and necessitated a second surgery.

Afterward, Boyle and her husband sued, claiming that Einstein was negligent in not having a physical therapist escort Boyle back to her bed to use the bedpan. A Philadelphia jury found that Einstein was negligent, but that the negligence was not the factual cause of Boyle's injury.

The plaintiffs filed post-trial motions claiming the jury's verdict was legally erroneous, and the trial court agreed with them. A new trial was granted and limited to the issue of damages.

Einstein appealed the ruling, arguing that the court abused its discretion in finding that the jury's verdict shocked the conscience.

In examining the ruling, Bowes noted that while the parties agreed that an injury occurred, they disagreed as to causation, leaving the issue for the jury to decide.

"The jury found that Einstein was negligent with respect to Ms. Boyle's post-surgery fall. The testimony of Einstein's own medical expert established that Ms. Boyle's fall resulted in some injury and required emergency surgery," Bowes said. "Consistent with the trial court's instructions, the jury was bound to find causation but failed to do so. Based on our review of the certified record and governing law, we discern no legal error or abuse of discretion in the trial court's award of a new trial."

Einstein also argued that the trial should not be limited to the issue of damages.

"Einstein did not reasonably challenge causation at trial and fails to identify any errors in the certified record that would cast doubt upon the jury's separate finding of negligence," Bowes said. "Although Einstein argues that limiting the new trial to the issue of damages would work a 'substantial injustice,' we are persuaded that the true inequity here would be in forcing appellees to relitigate the issue of liability without cause."

J. Michael Doyle of Post & Schell represents Einstein and did not respond to a request for comment. David Binder of Gold, Silverman, Goldenberg & Binder represents the plaintiffs and did not respond to a request for comment.