PA Superior Court holds that expert testimony is needed to prosecute claim of medical negligence.

The plaintiff brought claim for medical malpractice, among several other claims, against Dr. Schmalenberger and West Shore Anesthesia Associates. After the plaintiff underwent hip replacement surgery and when she awoke from the surgery, she had looked at her phone to find that someone had sent her a photo of herself, taken before her surgery, of her in her hospital bed. She later found out this photo was sent by Dr. Schmalenberger, who was assisting with her surgery. The plaintiff claims that Dr. Schmalenberger breached the standard of care owed to her. She did not file a certificate of merit, but rather a certificate stating that expert testimony of a licensed professional is not needed to prosecute her claim. She claimed injuries as a result of receiving the photo and had an extensive medical history for which she was previously treated for depression. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment as to plaintiff’s medical negligence claim and all other claims, arguing that multiple federal courts have held that HIPAA does not create a private cause of action, which was granted by the trial court.

On appeal, the plaintiff argued that Dr. Schmalenberger’s conduct “‘was so far outside the standard of care that her testimony would be sufficient to establish each and every element of negligence,’” and that her own testimony could establish a causal link between the picture sent to her and the emotional injuries she suffered, and continues to suffer, as a result of the doctor’s action or inaction. The court stated that “in all but the most self-evident medical malpractice actions, the plaintiff must provide a medical expert who will testify as to elements of duty, breach and causation,” except for in circumstances when the negligence is so obvious that a lay person could recognize negligence just as well as an expert. In these circumstances, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur “allows a fact-finder to infer from the circumstances surrounding the injury that the harm suffered was caused by the negligence of the defendant.” The plaintiff argued that res ipsa loquitur precluded the need for expert testimony. The Superior Court disagreed, stating that a lay juror would not be able to determine that Dr. Schmalenberger’s conduct established negligence without expert opinion. Further, the court stated that the plaintiff’s damages, including physical pain, distress and emotional damages, accompanying an extensive medical history, required that an expert testify to the cause of each of her diagnoses. 

While a non-precedential decision, this case highlights the continuing need for a plaintiff to bring forth expert testimony in pursuing a medical malpractice claim, even in unconventional scenarios such as in Schweigart. Thus, defense attorneys can prevail in having claims dismissed against their clients for a plaintiff’s failure to supply expert testimony when bringing a claim for medical negligence. 
 

^{Case Law Alerts, 1st Quarter, January 2022 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2022 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}