Mitchell, L. v. Shikora, E.
161 A.3d 970
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Lanette Mitchell underwent a laparoscopic hysterectomy at Magee Women’s Hospital; during entry the surgeon (Dr. Shikora) severed her bowel, requiring a diverting ileostomy and temporary ostomy bag.
- Mitchell sued for medical negligence (not informed-consent), alleging the surgeon breached the standard of care by failing to identify the bowel before cutting.
- At trial the court precluded direct informed-consent evidence (communications about risks and plaintiff’s assent) but allowed general testimony about the known risks and complications of laparoscopic hysterectomy (including bowel injury).
- Defendants’ theory emphasized that bowel injury is a known, sometimes unavoidable complication and not proof of negligence; both parties’ experts agreed complications can occur absent negligence.
- The jury returned a verdict for Defendants; Mitchell moved for a new trial arguing the risks/complications evidence was irrelevant and prejudicial in a negligence-only case. The trial court denied the motion.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding that the general risks/complications testimony was inadmissible here because it was not probative of whether the surgeon breached the standard of care and it risked misleading the jury; a new trial was ordered.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of general evidence about surgical risks/complications in a negligence-only medical malpractice trial | Mitchell: Such evidence is irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial where no informed-consent claim exists; it invites the jury to equate consent to risk with consent to negligence. | Defendants: Evidence is relevant to the standard of care, helps jurors understand the procedure, and prevents improper inference of causation solely from injury occurrence. | The court held the risks/complications evidence was inadmissible here — it did not meaningfully aid the negligence inquiry, and it risked confusing/ misdirecting the jury; reversal and new trial required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Urbas, 111 A.3d 1155 (Pa. 2015) (informed-consent evidence may be multifaceted; patient assent irrelevant to negligence, but risk testimony can be admissible if probative of standard of care)
- Fletcher–Harlee Corp. v. Szymanski, 936 A.2d 87 (Pa. Super. 2007) (standard for reviewing denial of new trial: abuse of discretion or controlling error of law)
- Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906 (Pa. Super. 2014) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; reversible error requires prejudice)