Joyner v. Thomas Jefferson Univ. Hosps., Inc., No. 534 EDA 2024, 2025 WL 933175, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. Mar. 26, 2025), reargument denied (May 29, 2025)
In her suit, the pro se plaintiff alleged negligent placement of leg restraints during gall bladder surgery. As she alleged a deviation from the professional standard of care, she was required to file a certificate of merit pursuant to Rule 1042.3.
The appellate court previously ruled that the plaintiff’s expert was an “appropriate licensed professional” under Rule 1042.3(e). Prior to trial, the defendant moved to exclude the plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding the standard of care, and the trial court limited his testimony solely to causation. The trial court granted a compulsory nonsuit, finding that the plaintiff lacked a duty breach.
The Superior Court reversed the nonsuit, finding that once the court accepted the plaintiff’s expert as a qualified expert, the trial court was bound to that determination.
This decision highlights issue preclusion; once an appellate court determines an expert is qualified, lower courts cannot re-litigate this issue.
