Paih, D. v. Noronha, A.
3584 EDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Oct 25, 2017Background
- Baby Togba suffered hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy at birth (June 16, 2008) and later was diagnosed with cerebral palsy; parents sued for medical malpractice alleging negligent management of labor and delivery.
- Plaintiffs alleged failures including improper Pitocin use, poor communication, failure to recognize/respond to nonreassuring fetal heart tracings, and delayed delivery.
- At trial the defense used two peremptory strikes to remove the only two African‑American venire members; plaintiffs raised a Batson challenge that the trial court denied.
- Defense experts testified that (1) there is no epidemiological evidence that fetal monitoring or increased C‑section rates have reduced population cerebral palsy rates and (2) other prenatal/placental causes could explain the injury. Plaintiffs objected to admission and cross‑examination on those topics.
- One‑day jury trial returned a defense verdict (jury found no breach of standard of care); post‑trial motions denied and appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of defense expert testimony that no epidemiological evidence shows fetal monitoring reduced cerebral palsy rates | Testimony was irrelevant to breach and misleading; prejudiced jury by diverting attention from defendants’ alleged negligent acts | Relevant to causation and undermined plaintiffs’ theory that intrapartum interventions reliably prevent cerebral palsy; also supported alternative causation opinions | Admission not an abuse of discretion; relevant to causation and harmless because jury found no breach; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Cross‑examination of plaintiffs’ expert (Hankins) using his own publications criticizing preventability of CP | Impermissible use of literature to confuse jurors and attack causation beyond scope; redirect should have been allowed to ask whether CP could have been prevented here | Permissible impeachment on publications relied upon; fair response to plaintiffs’ causation theory; redirect limited to scope of cross | Cross‑examination using Hankins’s publications was proper; redirect properly limited to matters raised on cross; no error |
| Limiting redirect to ask Hankins if CP could have been prevented in this specific case | Defense opened causation topic; plaintiffs should be allowed to ask express opinion on preventability here on redirect | Redirect may only address matters raised on cross; that specific question was not elicited on cross | Trial court did not abuse discretion in restricting redirect; question not within scope of cross‑examination |
| Batson challenge to strikes of African‑American venire members (Juror #4) | Strikes were race‑based and reasons given were pretextual; juror should have been empaneled | Struck for race‑neutral reasons: close family member had meconium‑staining/aspiration concerns at same hospital and meconium was a central issue—risk of sympathy/bias | Trial court’s acceptance of defense’s race‑neutral explanation was not clearly erroneous; Batson challenge properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes)
- Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614 (Batson applies in civil cases)
- Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health Sys., 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009) (trial court discretion governs expert testimony rulings)
- Majdic v. Cincinnati Machine Co., 537 A.2d 334 (Pa. Super. 1988) (expert may be cross‑examined on publications relied upon)
- Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (peremptory strike explanation will be deemed race‑neutral unless discriminatory intent inherent)
- Commonwealth v. Cook, 952 A.2d 594 (Pa. 2008) (trial court’s Batson credibility determinations entitled to great deference)