Anderson v. McAfoos
57 A.3d 1141
Pa.2012Background
- Mrs. Anderson underwent complex treatment by Dr. McAfoos for hiatal hernia and cancer; post-surgical discharge followed by rapid deterioration and death due to sepsis.
- Plaintiffs filed medical malpractice action in Feb 2002 against Dr. McAfoos and Warren Surgeons, Inc.; MCARE Act governs expert testimony standards applicable to such actions.
- Dr. Manion, a pathologist, offered a standard-of-care opinion; defendants objected that he was not qualified under MCARE §512(c).
- Trial court sustained the objection and nonsuited plaintiffs; plaintiffs moved to remove the nonsuit arguing MCARE §512(e) or §512(d) exceptions allowed Manion’s testimony despite lack of same-subspecialty board certification.
- Appellants argued waiver issues and timing: objection was raised post-voir dire rather than via pretrial motion; questions preserved for appellate review.
- Court of first impression addressed whether MCARE §512 applies to pre-MCARE cases and whether objections can be raised after voir dire; ultimately affirmed trial court, holding plaintiffs failed to preserve §512(e) applicability and that objections need not be pre-voir dire.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCARE §512 applies to the case and pathologist’s competency. | Manion’s pathology expertise and teaching qualify under §512(e); same-subspecialty requirement was met in essence. | Manion fails §512(c)(2) and (3); exceptions §512(d),(e) do not apply; thus not competent. | No, not competent; §512(e) not properly preserved for review. |
| Whether the objection to Manion’s competency was waived by not raising it in a pretrial motion. | Rule requires timely preservation; pretrial motion not necessary. | Objection raised post-voir dire was proper and timely. | Waiver; lack of proper preservation bars the §512(e) challenge. |
| Whether the trial court should have allowed Manion under §512(d) or §512(e) given his lack of patient care experience. | Dr. Manion’s expertise in lab data supports standard-of-care analysis for discharge decisions. | Anatomic/pathology expertise cannot substitute for surgery care, and §512(d)/(e) require relevant activity in treating condition. | Inapplicable; no patient-care overlap to satisfy §512(d) or §512(e) in this record. |
| Timeliness and effect of case-management deadlines on MCARE competency objections. | No waiver due to procedural deadlines; MCARE applies retroactively to pre-enactment cases with preparation time. | Pretrial deadlines and local rules govern objections; post-voir dire objection permissible. | Rule preserved that local deadlines do not override issue-preservation requirements; not allowing post-voir dire substitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vicari v. Spiegel, 605 Pa. 381 (Pa. 2010) (MCARE Act competency standard applying to expert testimony)
- Wexler v. Hecht, 593 Pa. 118 (Pa. 2007) (Application of MCARE §512 to pre- and post-enactment cases; time for preparation)
- Womer v. Hilliker, 589 Pa. 256 (Pa. 2006) (COM rule analogue; treatment of expert disclosures in professional-liability actions)
- Grady v. Frito-Lay, Inc., 576 Pa. 546 (Pa. 2003) (Burden on proponent to establish MCARE §512 qualifications)
- Wexler v. Hecht, 847 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2004) (Intermediate appellate court decision on applicability of MCARE to pre-MCARE cases)