In the case Phillips v. Gilbert, July Term 2016 No. 02819 (C.P.
Phila. Co. June 17, 2019 Lauchman, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925
Opinion requesting the Superior Court to affirm the trial court’s decision that
the Plaintiff’s expert in a dental malpractice case, who had never performed a
dental implantation procedure during his lengthy career as a dental pathologist, lacked the training,
experience, and knowledge necessary to testify regarding the standard of care
applicable to the dental implant procedure that had been performed on the
Plaintiff by the Defendant.
The court
noted that the Plaintiff’s expert was an oral and maxillofacial pathologist and
not an oral and maxillofacial surgeon.
Given that the court barred the Plaintiff’s expert from
testifying, the Plaintiff was found to be unable to establish a prima facie
case of negligence. As such, the trial
court granted a compulsory non-suit in favor of the Defendant and denied the Plaintiff’s
post-trial motion. The Plaintiff filed
an appeal which prompted this Rule 1925 Opinion by the court.
In its Opinion, the trial court emphasized that oral and
maxillofacial surgeons and pathologists undergo completely different training
and performed completely different procedures on patients.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click
this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania
Law Weekly (July 16, 2019).
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.