Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
175 results for '* topic:"Medical Malpractice"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2022-12-05
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
Judge: Judge Caffrey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 2021-C-0010
The patient safety reports plaintiff sought in this medical malpractice suit were solely prepared for compliance with the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act reporting requirements, but they were not immune from discovery because they did not arise out of matters reviewed by a patient safety committee. The court vacated a prior order and issued a new order granting discovery on corrected grounds.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 30007 OF 2016, C.A.
While the state's Emergency Medical Services Systems Act provides that emergency medical service providers are immune from suit unless the claimant establishes gross negligence or willful misconduct, plaintiff's evidence, including two medical expert reports, raised issues of material fact regarding whether defendants acted with gross negligence in treating the decedent during a cardiac incident. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.
Publication Date: 2022-11-21
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Cox
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 30010 OF 2021, C.A.
Plaintiff's medical malpractice complaint lacked the specificity required by Pa.R.C.P. 1019(a) absent any factual averments to indicate what action/inaction caused plaintiff's alleged harm and her demand for punitive damages lacked any allegations to demonstrate that defendants acted in a manner that was malicious, willful, oppressive or exhibited reckless indifference to the rights of others. The court sustained defendants' preliminary objections.
Publication Date: 2022-11-14
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care | Legal Services
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Monroe County
Judge: Judge Williamson
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 6050 CIVIL 2019
Court denied defendants' motion to seal the record of settlement, finding that they failed to show good cause to overcome the presumption of openness within the judicial system. Although defendants argued that the settlement would garner unwanted attention from the media and uninterested third parties, the court found that this argument was merely speculative in nature as defendants had failed to point to a single incident of intrusion into their personal or professional lives.
Publication Date: 2022-08-22
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lehigh County
Judge: Judge Caffrey
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0873
Defendants failed to demonstrate that certain patient safety reports generated while plaintiff was in hospital to give birth were immune from discovery in this medical malpractice suit under either the Peer Review Protection Act or the privilege afforded by the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act. The court granted plaintiff's motion to compel.,
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: T. BART GARY, JAKE CARROLL
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-08-15
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Superior Court
Judge: Judge Pellegrini
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0907
Trial court erred in dismissing delayed diagnosis claim under statute of limitations where there was material dispute whether plaintiff had inquiry notice that she had been misdiagnosed and that the misdiagnosis delayed her eventual cancer diagnosis. Order of the trial court reversed, case remanded.
Publication Date: 2022-07-25
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry:
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County
Judge: Judge Nealon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0762
Court denied defendants' preliminary objections in medical malpractice case. Although the multiple defendants generally argued plaintiff failed to plead several of the claims with specificity, the court denied these arguments noting that the complaint was aptly pled, placing the defendants on sufficient notice of the claims they would need to defend.
Publication Date: 2022-06-27
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Federal Government | Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court for Pennsylvania - Eastern
Judge: District Judge Pratter
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0707
Medical expert witness holding administrative, non-clinical medical license could not opine on the duty of care owed by a physician but was competent to testify as to the duty of care owed by hospital management as administrators. Defendant's partial motion to dismiss granted, motion to exclude expert testimony granted in part and denied in part.
Publication Date: 2022-05-02
Practice Area: Medical Malpractice
Industry: Health Care
Court: Courts of Common Pleas, Lawrence County
Judge: Judge Hodge
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 22-0377
Defendants were entitled to summary relief in this medical malpractice suit brought by the decedent's administratrix because there was no factual support for her expert's opinion that there was a causal connection between the defendant doctor's alleged negligence and the decedent's post-surgical death. The court denied plaintiff's motion for reconsideration.
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.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read