Of note in this matter, the court did rule that the Plaintiff was entitled to an increased risk of medical malpractice jury instruction on recurrence in a case where the Plaintiff had cancer, but had not yet suffered any recurrence.
The court noted that, under Pennsylvania law, where a Plaintiff already has a disease, its recurrence is not a separate injury that could support a later lawsuit, but rather, a matter of damages in the original lawsuit.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this non-precedential decision may click this LINK. Judge McLaughlin's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.
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.