Photo: Shutterstock

Providing guidance on the necessary elements of expert testimony in a medical malpractice case, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has reversed a trial judge's grant of nonsuit in favor of a Lancaster County surgeon sued for negligence after one of his patients died of a pulmonary embolism following colon surgery.

A three-judge panel consisting of Judges Victor Stabile, Maria McLaughlin and John Musmanno tossed the judgment in favor of defendants Dr. Joseph Voystock and Surgical Specialists of Lancaster and awarded plaintiff Francisco Rolon, widower of Maria Sanchez-Rodriguez, a new trial.

According to Stabile's precedential April 28 opinion in Rolon v. Davies, Voystock performed a hemicolectomy on Sanchez-Rodriguez on April 20, 2010. On May 19, the patient went back to the hospital complaining of pain in her right lower back, right hip and right leg as well as a swollen, blue leg.

Tests for clots and deep vein thrombosis came back negative. According to Stabile, Voystock ordered an arterial study, which also showed no problems. Given the test results and her improving condition, Sanchez-Rodriguez was released.

Within an hour of her discharge, Sanchez-Rodriguez collapsed and died. The plaintiff filed a subsequent medical negligence action.

At the trial level, the defendants moved for a nonsuit, claiming the plaintiff's expert, Dr. David Campbell, did not offer his opinion to a reasonable degree of medical certainty in accord with Pennsylvania law on Voystock's alleged negligence. The judge granted the motion and the jury returned a defense verdict.

On appeal, Rolon argued that the judge erred by granting the defendants' motion for nonsuit. The Superior Court agreed.

"The import of Dr. Campbell's testimony is that Dr. Voystock breached the standard of care by failing to diagnose DVT and treat decedent accordingly," Stabile said. "He stated he was certain of his opinion, and he explained that the ultrasound of decedent's lower leg evidenced a blockage higher up. The ultrasound results, in tandem with Decedent's recent surgery, led Dr. Campbell to opine that a pelvic DVT, despite its rarity, had to be ruled out in this case. Thus, not only did Dr. Campbell express his certainty as to his opinion, he provided a thorough explanation of how he arrived at that opinion given the evidence before him. Dr. Campbell also explained why the evidence did not support Dr. Voystock's diagnosis."

Because of that, Rolon was entitled to a new trial.

Mark Atlee of Atlee Hall in Lancaster represents the plaintiff and did not respond to a request for comment.

The defendants are represented by James Saxton of Saxton & Stump in Lancaster, who did not respond to a request for comment.