226 A.3d 582
Pa. Super. Ct.2020Background
- May 3, 2012 abdominal/pelvic CT read by Dr. Sushrut Shah did not note omental lesions that plaintiff says indicated metastatic ovarian cancer.
- Decedent’s condition worsened; December 14, 2012 CT and subsequent evaluation diagnosed Stage IV ovarian cancer; December 26 surgery was suboptimally debulking; bowel perforation, sepsis, and death followed in January 2013.
- Plaintiff (Louis McFeeley, administrator) sued Dr. Shah and Diagnostic Imaging for professional negligence, alleging the May 2012 reading delayed diagnosis/treatment and reduced chances of optimal debulking and survival.
- At trial plaintiff’s experts said disease progressed from May to December and that delay increased surgical risk; defense expert Dr. Seth Glick (gastrointestinal radiologist) testified the perforation was from chronic diverticular disease and that omission of subtle omental densities did not breach the standard of care.
- Jury found defendants negligent but concluded that negligence was not the factual cause of the Decedent’s injury/death; trial court denied plaintiff’s post-trial new-trial motion; Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the jury verdict finding no factual causation was against the weight of the evidence | Delay caused by Dr. Shah’s failure to report omental lesions increased risk of perforation and reduced 5‑year survival; verdict is against weight | Evidence was conflicting; alternative causes (diverticulitis) and differing expert views made causation a jury question | Affirmed — trial court properly denied new trial; weight review is deferential and record supported jury’s credibility findings |
| Whether defense radiologist (Dr. Glick) was improperly allowed to opine on cause of the colon perforation | Dr. Glick (radiologist) lacked clinical/surgical experience to testify about causation; should have been excluded under common‑law and MCARE standards | Dr. Glick is fellowship‑trained in abdominal/gastrointestinal radiology, taught clinically, reviewed imaging and barium enema—qualified to offer causation from radiologic perspective; MCARE requirements satisfied | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; Dr. Glick had reasonable specialized knowledge and met MCARE qualifications |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Smaling, 80 A.3d 485 (Pa. Super. 2013) (deferential standard for appellate review of weight‑of‑the‑evidence claims)
- Haan v. Wells, 103 A.3d 60 (Pa. Super. 2014) (criteria for new trial based on verdict shocking to sense of justice)
- Corvin v. Tihansky, 184 A.3d 986 (Pa. Super. 2018) (conflicting evidence does not require new trial)
- Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., 910 A.2d 68 (Pa. Super. 2006) (standard for qualifying expert testimony and medical causation principles)
- Renna v. Schadt, 64 A.3d 658 (Pa. Super. 2013) (interpretation and standard of review for MCARE issues)
- Yacoub v. Lehigh Valley Med. Assocs., P.C., 805 A.2d 579 (Pa. Super. 2002) (expert must have experience or education in subject to qualify)
- Weiner v. Fisher, 871 A.2d 1283 (Pa. Super. 2005) (proponent bears burden to establish MCARE expert qualifications)