Pennsylvania Court Affirms that Experts and Treating Physicians Must Be in Same Specialty
Kunkel v. Abington Memorial Hospital, 2024 PA Super 298 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2024)
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reiterated, retained experts opining on the standard of care must be experts in the same practice area as the named defendants. Additionally, the court agreed that only one expert can testify on causation and that allowing multiple would be cumulative if their reports are duplicative in addressing the defendant’s alleged failures when treating the patient.
Lastly, the court affirmed that the patient’s treating physicians’ testimony was properly excluded. While the opinions the physicians reach when treating patients are not expert testimony, because they are not prepared in anticipation of litigation, the physicians in this case only formed their opinion in preparation of litigation and, therefore, could not testify because the plaintiff did not identify them as experts prior to trial.
As such, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania found the trial court properly ruled to exclude the plaintiff’s proposed expert testimony.
Standard to Meet Gross Negligence and What Protections Are Afforded Pursuant to Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act Outlined by Pennsylvania Court
Toth v. Chambersburg Hospital, 2024 Pa. Super. Ct. 236, 325 A.3d 870, 873 (2024)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed summary judgment and found that the treatment given to a patient in a mental health facility did not rise to the level of gross negligence needed to overcome the immunity provided by the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act.
The patient—diagnosed with dementia and addressed as a high-fall risk—attempted to run, fell, sustained a hip fracture and later passed away. The hospital sought summary judgment, asserting immunity under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA), which protects facilities, physicians, and other authorized people in the absence of willful misconduct or gross negligence for certain decisions related to treatment.
The trial court granted the motion, concluding the hospital’s actions did not constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct.
The Superior Court affirmed this decision, agreeing that the hospital’s conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence required to overcome statutory immunity.
Pennsylvania Court Reaffirms that Medical Malpractice Claims Require Clear Evidence of Direct Link Between Health Care Provider’s Actions and Harm Suffered
L. Rongione and R. Rongione v. Abington Memorial Hospital, No. 2902 EDA 2023, 2024 Wl 5002521 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2024)
The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding they were able to make a causal connection between the health care provider’s actions and the harm suffered, stating the plaintiff adequately demonstrated medical negligence.
The court reiterated that a plaintiff alleging medical negligence must provide an expert witness who can opine, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, on an identified standard of care, a deviation from that care, and the breach was a proximate cause of the harm suffered.
Additionally, the court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to submit comparative negligence to the jury because the defendant was unable to show that any comparative negligence was not the cause of the alleged harm. Because the defendant was unable to testify with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the court did not find that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate comparative negligence.
