Error In Judgment Defense
Contents |
Crank The Pennsylvania Supreme Court is slated to hear the appeal of a medical malpractice case that could usher error in judgment synonym a controversial defense position back into Pennsylvania courthouses. Depending on the error in judgment definition high court’s ruling, Pennsylvania physicians defending against medical malpractice suits may once again be entitled to a error in judgment 1998 jury instruction that “a mere error in judgment” does not constitute negligence. The case being appealed involves a two-month old boy, Anthony Passarello, who underwent multiple treatments for oedipus error in judgment gastroesophageal reflux in 2001. After several visits with the defendant physician, worsening symptoms compelled his parents, Steven and Nicole Passarello, to bring the boy to the emergency room, where doctors found him in severe respiratory distress. Anthony died soon after, and an autopsy revealed the cause of death as diffuse viral myocarditis, a viral infection of the
Error In Judgment Rule
heart. The Passarellos sued the baby’s doctor and practice group in 2003, and a jury eventually rendered its verdict in 2009, siding with the defendant physician. But unbeknownst to everyone involved, another medical malpractice suit had just been filed in another part of the state, and would pave the way for the Passarellos’ appeal. That case involved the complicated birth of Austin Pringle. During delivery, Austin’s shoulder became stuck behind the pubic bone of his mother, Christine Pringle. To free the baby, the physician attempted the “McRoberts maneuver,” which involved raising Christine’s legs toward her shoulders while applying traction to Austin’s head. This attempt failed, so the doctor tried a second technique that involved applying pressure to Christine’s abdomen. That attempt also failed, so the doctor manually turned the baby’s shoulder out from behind the pubic bone using a maneuver called “the corkscrew procedure.” When it was discovered that Austin suffered extensive nerve damage during his birth, his parents filed suit. Following the testimony at the e
Required Invalid e-mail Friend's Email Required Invalid e-mail Message You have 250 characters remaining for your message. |Print Don’t Take Away my Error in Judgment Defendants in medical malpractice cases often feel that the instructions to the jury are unfair and place a burden on the defense that is difficult to overcome. In the past, there was one jury instruction, referred to as the ‘error in judgment” charge, which was perceived as leveling the playing field. Unfortunately, due to a recent Superior Court Ruling, that instruction is no longer available to defendants and its applicability has http://blogs.lawyers.com/2012/06/error-in-judgment-may-be-valid-defense-for-medical-malpractice/ been further restricted. On September 9, 2011, the Superior Court in Passarello v. Grumbine, M.D., --- A.3d.---, 2011 WL 3963587 (Pa. Super), held that its prior ruling in Pringle v. Rappaport, D.O., 980 A.2d. 159 (Pa. Super 2009), prohibiting the application of the “error in judgment” rule, would apply retroactively to cases in which the final judgment on the verdict had not been entered before http://www.mccumberdaniels.com/firm-news/attorney-articles-and-commentaries/dont-take-away-my-error-in-judgment.aspx the Court’s 2009 filing date in Pringle. Therefore, the “error in judgment” charge is now prohibited in any cases filed before the Superior Court’s ruling in Pringle where no verdict of final judgment has been entered. By way of background, until August 2009, defendants in medical malpractice cases often argued to the jury that when physicians used their best judgment and exercised reasonable care in the treatment of patients their conduct did not constitute negligence. The “error in judgment” charge generally provided that “physicians are not responsible for ‘mere errors in judgment’ or the use of ‘best judgment’ unless the resulting error constitutes, or was the result of, negligence.” Pringle at 165. Essentially, the courts instructed the jury that defendants were not liable for mistakes or errors in judgment. If defendants were successful in presenting this argument to the jury, trial courts often instructed juries on the defendant’s proposed “error in judgment” charge which often led to successful verdicts in favor of the defendant. Over the years, many appeals were taken regarding this jury instruction with varying results. On August 31, 2009, the Superior Court in Pringle addressed the long-debated issue and abolish
Justices to consider 'error in judgment' medical malpractice defense Supreme Court's reconsideration of previously banned defense sparks new trial June 11, 2012 12:18 AM By Zack Needles The Legal Intelligencer The state Supreme Court has http://www.post-gazette.com/news/health/2012/06/11/Justices-to-consider-error-in-judgment-medical-malpractice-defense/stories/201206110183 agreed to hear arguments over whether medical malpractice defendants may rely on an "error in judgment" defense at trial. The court issued two orders May 23 separately granting the petitions for allowance of appeal of defendants Rowena http://www.healio.com/orthopedics/business-of-orthopedics/news/print/orthopedics-today/%7Bd7eabc45-8aa4-4d2a-9d97-391e4a34e1fe%7D/judgment-giving-deference-to-physicians-decisions-in-medicalmalpractice-cases T. Grumbine and Blair Medical Associates Inc. In Passarello v. Grumbine, a three-judge state Superior Court panel granted a new trial to the parents and estate of a 2-month-old baby who died while in the care of error in Dr. Grumbine and Blair Medical, according to court papers. The court retroactively applied its 2009 ruling in Pringle v. Rapaport, which banned the "error in judgment" defense in medical malpractice cases. Defendants in medical malpractice cases historically argued that an "error in judgment" does not constitute negligence. "In this instance, we find no impediment to retroactive application of the holding in Pringle," Judge John T. Bender wrote for the court panel. The court said its error in judgment ruling would apply retroactively only to those cases in which the final judgment of the verdict had not been entered before the 2009 filing date of Pringle, which was the case in Passarello. In Passarello, like in Pringle, the trial judge gave a jury instruction beyond the standard-of-care instruction and also discussed the error in judgment rule. "'Under the law physicians are permitted a broad range of judgment in their professional duties and physicians are not liable for errors of judgment unless it's proven that an error of judgment was the result of negligence,'" Judge Bender wrote, quoting the Blair County trial judge's jury instruction in Passarello. The jury eventually sided with the defense in the case. But the Superior Court granted plaintiffs Stephen and Nicole Passarello -- who sued Dr. Grumbine and Blair Medical after their son died of diffuse acute viral myocarditis, a viral infection of the heart muscle -- a new trial based on this instruction and defense counsel's arguments, which Judge Bender said "exploited" the trial judge's jury charge. The Passarellos had brought their son, Anthony Passarello, to Dr. Grumbine and Blair Medical and had contacted Dr. Grumbine's office multiple times after his birth, complaining that he was barely eating, was crying after feedings, had a slight cough and was vomiting. Dr. Grumbine said Anthony Passarello's symptom