Plaintiff's Med Mal Experts Permitted to Testify But Scope of Testimony Somewhat Curtailed

In the case of Rotella v. Community Medical Center, No. 2022-CV-3943 (C.P. Lacka. Co. Sept. 5, 2024 Nealon, J.), the court addressed motions seeking to preclude defense expert witness in a medical malpractice case.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion In Limine seeking to preclude the testimony of various expert witnesses for the defense on several grounds.

First, the Plaintiff asserted that the experts do not satisfy the competency requirements as set forth in Section 512 of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act, 40 Pa. C.S.A. §1303.512.

The Plaintiffs additionally asserted that the testimony of the multiple defense experts concerning causation was needlessly cumulative.

Third, the Plaintiff asserted that two (2) of the experts discussed irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial information in their Pre-Trial Reports regarding unrelated medical condition.

After his review of the record before him, Judge Terrence R. Nealon of the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas ruled that, based upon the expert reports and the CVs submitted, the defense experts at issue were found to possess the necessary qualifications to address the medical causation issues.

Judge Nealon additionally found that the opinions of the various defense experts were from different medical specialties and distinct clinical perspectives and, as such, constituted corroborative, rather than needlessly cumulative evidence.

As to the third issue, Judge Nealon granted the Plaintiff’s Motion In Limine and found that, since the infectious disease care provided to the male Plaintiff was not a subject of the Plaintiffs’ negligence claims, the defense infectious disease expert would be precluded from offering opinions that the infectious disease treatment in the matter complied with the standard of care.

Judge Nealon additionally ruled that, given that the COVID-19 pandemic did not affect the care involved in this case or otherwise impact the applicable standard of care, the defense corporate liability expert would be barred from mentioning “hospitals across the country were be inundated with patients who were victims of the COVID pandemic” at the time of the male Plaintiff’s hospitalization.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.