Passarello v. Grumbine
29 A.3d 1158
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Two-month-old Anthony Passarello died while under pediatric care at Blair Medical Associates, Inc., after multiple visits in the week before his death on August 4, 2001.
- Parents Steven and Nicole Passarello sued Dr. Rowena Grumbine and Blair Medical Associates for medical malpractice.
- Anthony’s symptoms included vomiting, fussiness, and respiratory distress in the week leading to his death; cause of death was post-morm? (viral myocarditis) per post-mortem.
- The case was filed July 28, 2003, and the defense verdict was entered on April 29, 2009.
- Trial court instructed the jury on an objective standard of care and separately charged the “error in judgment” doctrine in Blair Medical’s favor, prompting appellate review.
- The Superior Court ultimately vacated the judgment and remanded for a new trial in light of Pringle v. Rapaport, which abrogated the error in judgment rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the error in judgment instruction violated Pringle and requires a new trial | Passarello argues the instruction misleads by injecting subjectivity. | Grumbine/Blair contend Pringle does not retroactively apply to this case. | Yes, the instruction violated Pringle and requires a new trial. |
| Whether Pringle should be retroactively applied given timing | Retroactive application is warranted due to pending litigation. | Retroactivity should be limited; late publication might avoid retroactivity. | Pringle applied retroactively; new trial ordered. |
| Whether the error was harmless or prejudicial | The error prejudiced Passarello by shaping jury deliberations. | The instruction was harmless due to evidence of negligence? | Harmless error standard not satisfied; prejudicial impact supported new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pringle v. Rapaport, 980 A.2d 159 (Pa. Super. 2009) (abrogated the error in judgment rule in medical malpractice cases)
- Blackwell v. State Ethics Commission, 527 Pa. 172, 589 A.2d 1094 (1991) (retroactivity considerations for new legal rules)
- Davis v. Government Employees Ins. Co., 775 A.2d 871 (Pa. Super. 2001) (retroactivity/appeals standards for civil cases)
- Morrison v. Commonwealth, Dept. of Pub. Welfare, 646 A.2d 565 (Pa. 1994) (abuse of discretion standard in appellate review)
- Bugosh v. I.U. North America, Inc., 971 A.2d 1228 (Pa. 2009) (retrospective evaluation of new rule application)
- Rettger v. UPMC Shadyside, 991 A.2d 915 (Pa. Super. 2010) (discusses standard of review in trial-related challenges)
- Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Surrick, 561 Pa. 167, 749 A.2d 441 (2000) (test for when a new rule applies to pending cases)