Expert Testimony Damages Post-Trial Relief
Glasgow v. Ducan, PICS Case No. 17-1077 (C.P. Philadelphia Jun. 29, 2017) Robinson, J. (36 pages).
In this professional negligence case, a doctor and nurse who testified on behalf of plaintiff were properly qualified as expert witnesses. Damages for lost wages and past medical expenses were warranted under the facts. Affirmed.
Plaintiff had chronic knee pain and a history of vascular issues. Dr. Bala, an orthopedic surgeon with a specialty in total joint replacement, recommended that plaintiff have bilateral knee replacement surgery. Plaintiff suffered significant health issues relating to her prosthetic knees, including infections in her surgical incisions and pressure wounds. The complications eventually resulted in the amputation of plaintiff's left leg. She later underwent a procedure to replace the right knee prosthesis. Plaintiff was permanently wheelchair-bound.
At trial, the jury found in favor of plaintiff and awarded damages in excess of $4 million.
Defendants argued the court erred in admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Shall because it lacked a sufficient foundation and his testimony was speculative. Therefore, defendants claimed they were entitled to a new trial. The court disagreed, finding that Dr. Shall's testimony was proper under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act ("MCARE Act"). Even though Dr. Bala and Dr. Shall had different subspecialties within the orthopedics specialty, the court found Dr. Shall met the waiver requirements for the subspecialty provision of the MCARE Act because he was sufficiently qualified due to his active involvement in a related field of medicine. Defendants were not entitled to a new trial, because the court found no undue prejudice due to Dr. Shall's testimony.
Plaintiff called Nurse Parisi to testify as an expert witness regarding plaintiff's future medical expenses and home health needs. Defendant contended Nurse Parisi did not meet the statutory qualifications under the MCARE Act. The court concluded that Nurse Parisi's testimony was not a "medical opinion" within the meaning of the MCARE Act. She did not render a medical diagnosis or recommend specific treatments, but rather, she testified regarding plaintiff's expected home care needs and the costs associated with her proposed life care plan. The court held Nurse Parisi was qualified to testify as an expert witness under common-law requirements. She had a diploma in nursing and had spent 14 years working as a visiting nurse, making assessments of patients' needs once they left the hospital. Nurse Parisi had prior experience with amputees and was familiar with their rehabilitative needs.