In the
case of Wright v. Residence Inn by Marriott,
Inc., 2019 Pa.Super. 110 (Pa. Super. April 9, 2019 Kunselman, J., Bowes, J.,
Shogan, J.) (Op. by Kunselman, J.) (Shogan, J., concurring in result), the
Pennsylvania Superior Court ordered a new trial on damages only in a case where the appellate court found that the Plaintiff’s medical expert was
improperly excluded by the trial court below.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff in a slip and fell ice and
sustained injuries in the form of shoulder and hip. At trial, the Plaintiff presented an
internist as a medical expert who had been practicing for over 37 years in the
field of internal medicine, which the expert described as covering all aspects
of medicine including the musculoskeletal system.
The
Pennsylvania Superior Court reaffirmed the rule that experts in one area of medicine may be
qualified to address other areas where the specialties overlap, or where the
expert has experience in the other field of medicine.
The
Superior Court emphasized that the matter before it was not a medical
malpractice case and that the witness was not asked to evaluate the care of a
different specialty. Rather, the expert was only present at trial at the
request of the Plaintiff to offer an opinion on causation, treatment, and
prognosis.
The
court noted that the expert in this case routinely treated patients with
injuries similar to that alleged by the Plaintiff. The court also noted that
the Plaintiff’s expert’s specialty was not wholly unrelated to the type of
treatment necessary for the Plaintiff’s alleged injuries. While a different type of medical specialist
may have been more qualified, this fact alone did not support the trial court’s
exclusion of the Plaintiff’s expert at trial.
As
the Pennsylvania Superior Court found that the exclusion of the Plaintiff’s
trial expert was prejudicial given that it left the Plaintiff without any
expert witness on the causation issue and extent of injuries issue, a new trial was
ordered on the issue of damages only.
Anyone
wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I
send thanks to Attorney James M. Beck of the Philadelphia office of the Reed
Smith law firm for bringing this case to my attention.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.