deviation standard in Pennsylvania

2024Generally, a plaintiff in a medical negligence action must present expert testimony to establish the physician’s deviation from the standard of care “proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Grossman v. Barke, 868 A.2d 561, 566-67 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

2024Generally, a plaintiff in a medical negligence action must present expert testimony to establish the physician’s deviation from the standard of care “proximately caused the plaintiff’s injury.” Grossman v. Barke, 868 A.2d 561, 566-67 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citation omitted).

2025To carry that burden, “a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of the injury.” Id. (citation omitted).

2025Because professional negligence “encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons[,] a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of the injury.” Id.

2017See Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, 907 A.2d 1061 , 1070-71 Pa. (2006). (explaining that, in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present a medical expert to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation, and the extent of the injury); Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 585-86 (Pa. 1997) (noting that a corporate negligence claim requires an expert to identify a defendant medical institution’s standard of care, and the ways in which the defendant’s departure from those standards led to the plaintiff’s injuries); Moure v. Raeuchle, 604 A.2

2000Expert testimony is not required to estab lish a deviation from the standard of care “where the matter under investigation is so simple, and the lack of skill or want of care so obvious, as to be within the range of the ordinary experience and comprehension of even nonprofessional persons.” Chandler v. Cook, 438 Pa. 447 , 451 n.1, 265 A.2d 794 , 796 n.1 (1970), quoted with approval in Welsh v. Bulger, 548 Pa. 504 , 513 n.11, 698 A.2d 581 , 585 n.11 (1997) and Matthews v. Clarion Hospital, 742 A.2d 1111, 1112 (Pa. Super. 1999).

2020Catlin v. Hamburg, 56 A.3d 914, 920 (Pa.Super. 2012).

2020Catlin v. Hamburg, 56 A.3d 914, 920 (Pa.Super. 2012).

2016Yee v. Roberts, 878 A.2d 906, 912 (Pa.Super.2005) (internal quotations and citation omitted).

2006In other words, ‘ [bjecause the negligence of a physician encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons [,] a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of the in jury.’” Yee v. Roberts, 878 A.2d 906, 912 (Pa. Super. 2005). (emphasis added) (citation omitted) Defendants argue that Dr. Canning’s medical report and deposition fail to link the alleged failure to remove all of the adhesions from the child’s penis during the initial surgery w

2005This necessarily involves a substantial deviation of the claim of at least one of the parents (natural or psychological). “[T]he psychological aspect of parenthood is more important in terms of the development of the child and its mental and emotional health than the coincidence of biological or natural parenthood.” Hoy v. Willis, 165 N.J.Super. 265 , 398 A.2d 109, 112 (1978) quoting Beyond the Best Interests of the Child.

2005This necessarily involves a substantial deviation of the claim of at least one of the parents (natural or psychological). “[T]he psychological aspect of parenthood is more important in terms of the development of the child and its mental and emotional health than the coincidence of biological or natural parenthood.” Hoy v. Willis, 165 N.J.Super. 265 , 398 A.2d 109, 112 (1978) quoting Beyond the Best Interests of the Child.

2017In other words, “[b]ecause the negligence of a physician encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons[,] a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of the injury.” Id.

2005In other words, “[b]eeause the negligence of a physician encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons[,] a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of the injury.” Id.

2026Our Supreme Court has emphasized, “The negligence required to merit criminal sanctions under Section 302 is certainly a heightened deviation from the standard of care applicable when civil tort liability is at issue.” Huggins, 836 A.2d at 867 .

2024The facts of this case require this Court to determine whether the Commonwealth presented a prima facie case that Appellant acted with “criminal negligence,” which is “a heightened deviation from the standard of care applicable when civil tort liability is at issue.” Huggins, 836 A.2d at 867 .

2024As the majority notes, a de minimis variance is appropriate where the variation requested is “minor and rigid compliance with the zoning ordinance is not necessary to protect public policy concerns.” Hawk v. City of Pittsburgh Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 38 A.3d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

2022Hosp., 123 A.3d 310, 325 (Pa. 2015). -6- J-A26033-22 plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of the injury.” Toogood, 824 A.2d at 1145 .3 In this case, Wilmer’s first appellate claim turns on whether her expert witness, Dr. Gopez, gave any testimony in his deposition which established the applicable standard of care for the spinal fusion procedure performed by Dr. Salkind.

2018More precisely, a plaintiff must establish that a defendant’s conduct grossly and flagrantly deviated from “the ordinary standard of care.” Bloom v. Dubois Regional Medical Center, 597 A.2d 671, 679 (Pa. Super. 1991).

2017See Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, 907 A.2d 1061 , 1070-71 Pa. (2006). (explaining that, in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present a medical expert to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation, and the extent of the injury); Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 585-86 (Pa. 1997) (noting that a corporate negligence claim requires an expert to identify a defendant medical institution’s standard of care, and the ways in which the defendant’s departure from those standards led to the plaintiff’s injuries); Moure v. Raeuchle, 604 A.2

2017See Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, 907 A.2d 1061 , 1070-71 Pa. (2006). (explaining that, in a medical malpractice action, a plaintiff must present a medical expert to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation, and the extent of the injury); Welsh v. Bulger, 698 A.2d 581, 585-86 (Pa. 1997) (noting that a corporate negligence claim requires an expert to identify a defendant medical institution’s standard of care, and the ways in which the defendant’s departure from those standards led to the plaintiff’s injuries); Moure v. Raeuchle, 604 A.2

2014See Commonwealth v. Berry, 887 A.2d 479, 485 (Pa.Super.2005) (“issues that are not supported by citations to the record and to pertinent legal authority are waived.”); see also Commonwealth v. Reyes, 870 A.2d 894 n.3 (Pa.2000) (on appeal, courts review only claims asserted with specificity). -6- J-S60037-14 her troubled youth in sentencing her to a standard range sentence, concluding that, “in the end, the sentencing court did not find that the mitigating factors outweighed [Appellant’s] prior record score or otherwise warranted a deviation from the standard range.” See Trial Court Opinion, p.

2010See Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center, 601 Pa. 233 , 971 A.2d 1202 (2009).

2010See Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center, 601 Pa. 233 , 971 A.2d 1202 (2009).

2009However, we cannot agree that the trial court’s decision to allow the testimony in question requires the grant of a new trial. *522 “Evidentiary rulings are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be overruled absent an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Takes v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 440 Pa.Super. 101 , 655 A.2d 138, 145 (1995) (en banc), reversed in part on other grounds, 548 Pa. 92 , 695 A.2d 397 (1997).

2009However, we cannot agree that the trial court’s decision to allow the testimony in question requires the grant of a new trial. *522 “Evidentiary rulings are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and will not be overruled absent an abuse of discretion or error of law.” Takes v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 440 Pa.Super. 101 , 655 A.2d 138, 145 (1995) (en banc), reversed in part on other grounds, 548 Pa. 92 , 695 A.2d 397 (1997).

2009Stalsitz v. Allentown Hospital, 814 A.2d 766, 779-780 (Pa.Super.2002). ¶ 28 In this case, Appellants were fully apprised of the nature of the purported deviation from the standard of care as well as the factual premise for causation.