Passarello v. Grumbine, 87 A.3d 285

Two-month-old Anthony Passarello died while under pediatric care at Blair Medical; postmortem found diffuse acute viral myocarditis as cause of death.
Plaintiff parents alleged physician Dr. Grumbine deviated from standard of care by failing to refer for further testing on August 2, 2001.
Trial included competing expert testimony: plaintiffs said failure to test breached standard; defendants argued diagnosis and treatment aligned with reasonable care.
Jury was charged with Blair Medical’s error-in-judgment instruction stating doctors aren’t liable for errors of judgment absent negligence; Dr. Grumbine’s version differed but was treated as equivalent.
Appellees objected to the instruction and later sought post-trial relief; the Superior Court later adopted Pringle v. Rapaport to bar the instruction in medical malpractice cases.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court reviewed whether to apply Pringle retroactively, and whether the Superior Court correctly analyzed the jury charge as a whole to determine prejudice and necessity of a new trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should an error-in-judgment instruction ever be given in medical malpractice cases?	Appellees argue the instruction is inappropriate and confusing.	Appellants contend a properly worded instruction may inform juries about non-negligent judgments.	No; the Court held such instructions should not be used in medical malpractice cases.
Whether Pringle v. Rapaport applies retroactively to this case	Appellees rely on Pringle as controlling law.	Appellants request retroactive application of Pringle.	Pringle applied retroactively; the new rule required remand for a new trial.
Whether the Superior Court properly considered the jury charge as a whole to determine prejudice	Appellees contend the charge as a whole violated due process and prejudiced them.	Appellants argue the error-in-judgment issue was not a fundamental error when viewed with the entire charge.	Yes; the Superior Court did review the entire charge and found prejudice requiring a new trial.
Was Appellees' objection to the instruction preserved and waived properly?	Appellees argued objections were preserved and timely.	Appellants claimed waiver due to the trial context and differing instructions.	Appellees did preserve objections; waiver did not bar review.

Yohe v. City of Philadelphia, 412 Pa. 94 (Pa. 1963) (established that error in judgment is not a blanket shield from liability, emphasizing objective standard of care)
Incollingo v. Ewing, 444 Pa. 263 (Pa. 1971) (set objective standard of care for physicians)
Donaldson v. Maffucci, 397 Pa. 548 (Pa. 1959) (first substantive restatement of physician's standard of care; no 'error in judgment' focus)
Ward v. Garvin, 328 Pa. 395 (Pa. 1938) (early view on errors in judgment; part of historical backdrop)
Duckworth v. Bennett, 320 Pa. 47 (Pa. 1935) (two schools of thought doctrine described)
LeBar v. Williams, 141 Pa. 149 (Pa. 1891) (predecessor discussions on error in judgment)
Schaaf v. Kaufman, 850 A.2d 655 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2004) (example of prior adoption of error-in-judgment reasoning in some cases)