Renna v. Schadt
64 A.3d 658
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2013Background
- Renna sued Dr. Schadt for medical malpractice alleging a May 2004 fine-needle aspiration biopsy caused delayed cancer diagnosis and worsened prognosis.
- MCARE challenges: the trial court allowed non-surgeon experts (pathologist and oncologist) to opine on surgeon standard of care.
- Trial evidence showed shed light on biopsy choices, imaging guidance, and alleged delay in diagnosis.
- Jury awarded Renna $400,000, later molded to $443,418.09 including delay damages; post-trial motions denied.
- Dr. Schadt appealed asserting MCARE errors, weight of evidence, and excessive verdict.
- Court affirmed judgment for Renna.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shane and Sklaroff could testify on standard of care under MCARE 512(e) | Renna’s experts were qualified under 512(e) | Experts lacked same specialty/board certification | No abuse; related-field qualifications satisfied |
| Whether causation evidence supports judgment for negligence | Delay caused more extensive cancer and worse prognosis | No causal link proven | Verdict supported; not n.o.v. |
| Whether the verdict was excessively high/entitled to remittitur or new trial | Verdict reasonable given damages | Damages excessive; remittitur warranted | No remittitur; verdict affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Vicari v. Spiegel, 605 Pa. 381 (Pa. 2010) (512(e) relatedness requires close relation to care at issue)
- Gbur v. Golio, 600 Pa. 57 (Pa. 2009) (relatedness interpretation of 512(e))
- Wexler v. Hecht, 593 Pa. 118 (Pa. 2007) (standard for appellate review of evidentiary rulings)
- Tulewicz v. SEPTA, 529 Pa. 584 (Pa. 1991) (excessiveness standard for jury awards (modification only for whimsy/caprice))