Frey, M. v. Potorski, R., M.D.
145 A.3d 1171
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2016Background
- Decedent underwent a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on March 28, 2006; he received 600 mg Plavix and 5,000 units of heparin before stenting; a left main artery dissection occurred, subsequent interventions failed, and he later died.
- Plaintiff (Mary Jane Frey, administratrix) sued interventional cardiologist Dr. Potorski for medical malpractice, alleging improper anticoagulation management and failure to obtain an ACT (activated clotting time) before the PCI.
- Defense presented hematologist Dr. Henry Rinder, who consults with interventional cardiologists about anticoagulation dosing; he opined the heparin/Plavix dosing met the standard of care and declined to opine on procedural/anatomic issues outside his expertise.
- Defense also presented interventional cardiologist Dr. Joel K. Kahn, who testified 5,000 units of heparin and the antiplatelet regimen met the standard of care and that an ACT was not required.
- The jury returned a unanimous defense verdict. Plaintiff moved for a new trial arguing Dr. Rinder was not qualified under the MCARE Act (40 P.S. § 1303.512) to testify about an interventional cardiologist’s standard of care. The trial court denied the motion.
- The Superior Court affirmed: it found Dr. Rinder met the MCARE Act’s familiarity requirement for the limited anticoagulation opinions and, even if admission were erroneous, the error was harmless because Dr. Kahn (a qualified interventional cardiologist) gave substantially similar testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dr. Rinder (hematologist) was qualified under MCARE §512(c) to opine on the standard of care for an interventional cardiologist | Rinder lacked substantial familiarity with interventional cardiology and did not perform PCI; therefore he could not testify about the cardiologist’s standard of care | Rinder’s hematology expertise in coagulation and regular consultations with interventional cardiologists made him substantially familiar with anticoagulation standards for PCI | Court: Rinder was sufficiently familiar to testify limitedly about anticoagulation dosing under §512(c) |
| Whether the trial court erred in admitting Rinder’s testimony generally under §512(c) | Admission was improper because specialty and practical PCI experience were lacking | Admission proper because the testimony was confined to clotting/coagulation dosing and Rinder had relevant experience consulting on those issues | Court: No error in admitting his limited, expertise‑bound testimony |
| Whether requirements of §512(e) (waiver of same‑specialty/board rules) were unmet | Rinder did not demonstrate sufficient training/experience in the applicable subspecialty to invoke the waiver | Trial court properly found Rinder’s training and consultative experience warranted waiver for the narrow anticoagulation topic | Court: §512(e) waiver appropriately applied for Rinder’s limited testimony |
| Whether any error in admitting Rinder’s testimony was prejudicial (new trial warranted) | Rinder’s testimony contradicted defense cardiologist and prejudiced plaintiff’s case | Any admission error was harmless because interventional cardiologist Kahn, a qualified expert, gave substantially similar opinions | Court: Any error was harmless; no new trial required; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wexler v. Hecht, 847 A.2d 95 (Pa. Super. 2004) (expert‑qualification standard is liberal and trial court has discretion)
- Jacobs v. Chatwani, 922 A.2d 950 (Pa. Super. 2007) (statutory interpretation of MCARE qualifications reviewed plenarily)
- Vicari v. Spiegel, 936 A.2d 503 (Pa. Super. 2007) (discussing expert qualification under MCARE requirements)
- Vicari v. Spiegel, 989 A.2d 1277 (Pa. 2010) (Supreme Court summary of MCARE §512 expert requirements and waiver exception)
- Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc., 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009) (experts from related specialties may testify when substantial familiarity shown)
- Smith v. Paoli Memorial Hosp., 885 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Super. 2005) (related‑specialty experts permitted where they demonstrated relevant experience)
- Weiner v. Fisher, 871 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2005) (burden on proponent to establish expert qualifications)
- Detterline v. D’Ambrosio’s Dodge, Inc., 763 A.2d 935 (Pa. Super. 2000) (erroneous evidentiary rulings require showing of prejudice to warrant a new trial)