Ball, L. v. Holy Redeemer Health System
Ball, L. v. Holy Redeemer Health System No. 3761 EDA 2015
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- In April 2007 Lisa Ball presented to Holy Redeemer ED with slurred speech and left-hand weakness; staff suspected prescription narcotic abuse. CT was negative and neurologist Dr. Tausch suspected narcotic intoxication. Narcan was given; Ball briefly awoke, became violent, was restrained and sedated, later diagnosed with viral meningitis (not at issue).
- Ball sued Holy Redeemer, Dr. Gemma Rozmus, and Dr. Gilbert Tausch in 2009 alleging negligence in anticipating/controlling her reaction to Narcan and in restraining her.
- After extended discovery, Ball served expert report from Dr. Ira Mehlman in Sept. 2013. At his 2015 deposition/trial voir dire Mehlman revealed he had not practiced clinically or taught regularly since ~2010 and was not board-certified in emergency medicine.
- Defendants moved to preclude Mehlman under the MCARE Act (40 P.S. §1303.512(b)) for failing the five‑year active practice/teaching requirement; they also moved for summary judgment arguing Ball could not prove a prima facie malpractice case without an expert.
- The trial court excluded Mehlman as unqualified under MCARE and granted summary judgment for defendants; the court dismissed Ball's complaint with prejudice. Ball appealed; Dr. Tausch cross‑appealed but his issues were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether exclusion of plaintiff's expert under MCARE and dismissal of suit was an abuse of discretion / overly harsh sanction | Ball: Mehlman met the liberal expert standard; if not, lesser sanctions (continuance, allow supplementation, let him return to practice) were appropriate | Defendants: Mehlman failed the MCARE five‑year active clinical practice/teaching requirement; exclusion was proper and summary judgment appropriate because plaintiff then had no expert | Court: Exclusion proper — plaintiff failed to prove Mehlman met MCARE; summary judgment proper because malpractice claim required expert testimony and plaintiff had none |
| Whether trial court erred in permitting evidence of plaintiff’s alleged drug abuse or excluding husband’s restraint training | Ball: Court should have excluded drug‑abuse evidence since Narcan administration was not disputed | Defendants: Evidence of drug abuse is relevant to causation/condition | Court: Declined to reach on merits as dispositive expert exclusion and summary judgment resolved case (issue rendered moot) |
Key Cases Cited
- Summers v. Certainteed Corp., 997 A.2d 1152 (Pa. 2010) (standard for viewing record on summary judgment — view facts in favor of nonmoving party)
- Swords v. Harleysville Ins. Cos., 883 A.2d 562 (Pa. 2005) (summary judgment jurisprudence and appellate review standard)
- Wexler v. Hecht, 847 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2004) (expert qualification is vested in trial court; liberal standard applies)
- Weiner v. Fisher, 871 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2005) (MCARE five‑year active practice/teaching requirement applies to expert testimony)
- Frey v. Potorski, 145 A.3d 1171 (Pa. Super. 2016) (burden on proponent to prove expert meets MCARE qualifications)
- Griffin v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr.-Braddock Hosp., 950 A.2d 996 (Pa. Super. 2008) (medical malpractice requires expert testimony on duty/breach/causation except in self‑evident cases)
- Grandelli v. Methodist Hosp., 777 A.2d 1138 (Pa. Super. 2001) (summary judgment appropriate where record lacks evidence to establish prima facie malpractice case)