recent developments in pennsylvania medical malpractice law

excess coverage where a doctor did not have primary coverage. Paternaster v. Lee, 863 A.2d 487 (Pa.2004). In St. Joseph Medical Center v. CAT Fund, 845 A.2d 692 (Pa. Commw. 2004), it was held thatthe Fund was not required to provide coverage to a hospital accused of negligently supervising ahospital technician who sexually assaulted a patient while conducting certain medical tests. This wasnot considered negligence in application of medical skills. Strine v. MCARE Fund, 894 A.2d 733 (Pa.2006) held that a bath in a nursing home that was prescribed by a physician was considered a coveredmedical service.The Superior Court held in Caruso v. CAT Fund, 858 A.2d 620 (Pa. Super 2004), that theprimary carrier and CAT Fund had to pay proportionate shares of delay damages and post-judgmentinterest after a verdict for the Plaintiff.JAMES R. KAHNMargolis Edelsteinjkahn@margolisedelstein.com(215)931-5887Fax (215)922-1772About the Author:Mr. Kahn has for the last 29 years concentrated his practice in the area of litigation, includingrepresentation of clients in casualty and commercial matters. He is chair of the professionalliability and commercial litigation practice group. Mr. Kahn has extensive experience inprofessional negligence litigation involving attorneys, accountants and medical providers; realestate, estate, contract, civil rights, collection and business disputes; insurance law andtransactions; motor vehicle, aircraft and product liability tort litigation; and in the structuringof large settlements. Mr. Kahn has been recognized as a Board Certified Civil Trial Advocateby the National Board of Trial Advocacy, a Pennsylvania Supreme Court approved agency.-21-