Brady v. Urbas
80 A.3d 480
Pa. Super. Ct.2013Background
- Mrs. Maria Brady underwent four podiatric procedures by Dr. William Urbas (Mar.–2010) for a right second-toe condition that ultimately left the toe shortened and painful.
- Mrs. Brady sued Dr. Urbas for medical malpractice; Mr. Brady asserted loss of consortium.
- Appellants moved in limine to exclude all evidence relating to Mrs. Brady’s informed consent and knowledge of surgical risks, arguing it was irrelevant to negligence and unfairly prejudicial.
- The trial court denied the motion; consent forms and testimony about risks were admitted and provided to the jury.
- The jury found no negligence. Appellants moved for a new trial, arguing admission of consent evidence was reversible error; the trial court denied relief.
- The appellate court vacated the judgment, reversed the denial of a new trial, and remanded for a new trial, concluding informed-consent evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial in a negligence-only malpractice case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of informed-consent evidence in negligence-only malpractice trial | Consent and disclosure evidence is irrelevant to negligence and should be excluded as prejudicial | Evidence of what plaintiff knew about risks is relevant to plaintiff's credibility and state of mind and probative on issues raised by plaintiff's expert | Court held such evidence was irrelevant to negligence and likely to confuse jury; admission was an abuse of discretion and controlled the outcome |
| Need for a cautionary jury instruction when admitting consent evidence | Admission was harmful and could not be cured; a cautionary instruction was required (but issue mooted by reversal) | Trial court did not err in admitting evidence and no special cautionary instruction was necessary | Court found the issue moot after holding admission was reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Fletcher-Harlee Corp. v. Szymanski, 936 A.2d 87 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for appellate review of new-trial denial)
- General Equipment Mfrs. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 635 A.2d 173 (Pa. Super. 1993) (admission/exclusion of evidence reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Jacobs v. Chatwani, 922 A.2d 950 (Pa. Super. 2007) (Pa.R.E. 401–403 relevance and prejudice framework)
- Wright v. Kaye, 593 S.E.2d 307 (Va. 2004) (informed-consent evidence not a defense to negligence; may confuse jury)
- Toogood v. Owen J. Rogal, D.D.S., P.C., 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003) (elements required to prove medical malpractice)