2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATEI. INTRODUCTIONThese materials started as a 20 page outline over 20 years ago and grew to over 200pages. Countless attorneys have contributed to these materials over the years. I could say thereare too many to name and that would probably be true, but the constant has been my friend andlaw partner Don Brooks. At one time I was his mentor, but now the tables have turned, and Ilearn more from him than he does from me. Certainly, Joan Plump, who has since left thepractice of law (probably because of all this writing) had been a great help. Our current team atEckert Seamans of Joshua Kirsch, Joshua Hill, Catherine Malia Ting, Mark Hermanovich,Jessica Bae, Desiree Wilfong, Jessica Wuebker, and Steven Millman, have been solidcontributors. I thank them for their effort. Last, but not least, Ms. Lisa Gervasi, my loyal andlong suffering assistant, deserves special praise.Peter J. Hoffman, EsquireECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC© Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC
Page 3 and 4: EMTALA CASES ......................
Page 5: Filing an Affidavit of Non-Involvem
Page 9 and 10: III.STANDARD OF CARE AND CAUSATION
Page 11 and 12: In McCandless v. Edwards, 908 A.2d
Page 13 and 14: Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7101 et seq., an
Page 15 and 16: manufacturing plant in Chickamauga,
Page 17 and 18: B. Standard of Care - Medical Malpr
Page 19 and 20: the need for expert medical testimo
Page 21 and 22: The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reve
Page 23 and 24: ased its holding on its findings th
Page 25 and 26: was the admissibility of testimony
Page 27 and 28: methodology, resulting in an unreli
Page 29 and 30: Frye is abuse of discretion. The ap
Page 31 and 32: this non-testifying doctor constitu
Page 33 and 34: 1996)). The Court then noted that P
Page 35 and 36: nurse was prevented from making und
Page 37 and 38: unable to testify about an estimate
Page 39 and 40: failing to timely diagnose and trea
Page 41 and 42: for nonsuit. The Superior Court vac
Page 43 and 44: should have been done under the cir
Page 45 and 46: appropriate to such practices.” T
Page 47 and 48: Defendant’s urology expert had a
Page 49 and 50: against Defendants after the death
Page 51 and 52: Plaintiff. Defendant appealed that
Page 53 and 54: of limitations had run on the Plain
Page 55 and 56: the required burden because his opi
Page 57 and 58:
procedure. Rather, Pennsylvania law
Page 59 and 60:
Plaintiff’s favor and against the
Page 61 and 62:
Appellee filed post-trial motions f
Page 63 and 64:
Justice Baer, who wrote the lead op
Page 65 and 66:
In Torretti v Main Line Hospitals,
Page 67 and 68:
condition was an emergency before d
Page 69 and 70:
The Thompson court set forth the fo
Page 71 and 72:
The hospital’s duties have been c
Page 73 and 74:
Grane established and administered
Page 75 and 76:
The Second Amended Complaint does h
Page 77 and 78:
performs his duty to obtain informe
Page 79 and 80:
hospital or HMO, as to whom corpora
Page 81 and 82:
espond properly to Plaintiff-Wife
Page 83 and 84:
Act protects the confidentiality of
Page 85 and 86:
In Emerich v. Philadelphia Center f
Page 87 and 88:
Supreme Court in Pearson. According
Page 89 and 90:
Pennsylvania psychiatrist-patient p
Page 91 and 92:
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reve
Page 93 and 94:
from defendant Hose’s home. Plain
Page 95 and 96:
of his face. According to Fine, on
Page 97 and 98:
limitations under the FTCA was not
Page 99 and 100:
A first trial resulted in judgment
Page 101 and 102:
Since the mid 1980’s, organized m
Page 103 and 104:
504(d)(2). This provision apparentl
Page 105 and 106:
With respect to Plaintiff’s conte
Page 107 and 108:
previous five years. 40 P.S. § 130
Page 109 and 110:
Secondly, as noted above, the Penns
Page 111 and 112:
known as extended claims, section 7
Page 113 and 114:
egan to run upon service of a bare
Page 115 and 116:
(2) the claim that the defendant de
Page 117 and 118:
necessary, a plaintiff must file a
Page 119 and 120:
with the Rule. Pointedly, the court
Page 121 and 122:
The pro se plaintiff in Bifulco v.
Page 123 and 124:
Plaintiffs further asserted that Ru
Page 125 and 126:
Relying on the language of Womer, t
Page 127 and 128:
The court vacated the trial court
Page 129 and 130:
he received inadequate treatment. P
Page 131 and 132:
The Court of Common Pleas ultimatel
Page 133 and 134:
federal issues because the federal
Page 135 and 136:
trial court’s order, finding that
Page 137 and 138:
Court noted that Defendants claimed
Page 139 and 140:
performance of the cardiac catheter
Page 141 and 142:
action arose. The trial court found
Page 143 and 144:
moving party, would require the iss
Page 145 and 146:
judgment in a case setting forth de
Page 147 and 148:
4. Civil Procedure Case Lawa. Disco
Page 149 and 150:
The trial court concluded that for
Page 151 and 152:
underlying action and that such neg
Page 153 and 154:
In Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. L
Page 155 and 156:
inspected for design and manufactur
Page 157 and 158:
market value, resulting in the corp
Page 159 and 160:
In Abood v. Gulf Group Lloyds, No.
Page 161 and 162:
ears the burden of proving by a pre
Page 163 and 164:
investigation. The retention letter
Page 165 and 166:
F. Supp. 502 (E.D. Pa. 1988), expla
Page 167 and 168:
In finding Plaintiff’s claims bar
Page 169 and 170:
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s
Page 171 and 172:
actually was based only on improper
Page 173 and 174:
submitted a declaration to defendan
Page 175 and 176:
(expert testimony required in case
Page 177 and 178:
P. Immunity From LiabilityIn a case
Page 179 and 180:
at 1092 (citing Pa. Rules of Prof
Page 181 and 182:
Departing from (although not expres
Page 183 and 184:
patients, the Attorney General of C
Page 185 and 186:
and the attorney who have standing
Page 187 and 188:
Post, through Bochetto, attempted t
show all

2012 PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY UPDATE - Eckert Seamans

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?