Russell, R. v. Westmoreland County Cardiology
Russell, R. v. Westmoreland County Cardiology No. 1696 WDA 2016
| Pa. Super. Ct. | Jul 12, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ronald Russell was hospitalized in Sept. 2010, started on warfarin for presumed pulmonary embolism, and discharged with instructions to continue anticoagulation.
- Russell alleges he was not given or informed of outpatient INR monitoring instructions (although Dr. Wodzinski had prescribed testing), and in mid‑October suffered a warfarin‑related subarachnoid hemorrhage.
- Russell sued Westmoreland County Cardiology and Dr. James Adisey for medical malpractice alleging failure to advise post‑discharge monitoring; he later settled with the hospital defendant.
- During discovery Russell produced a brief expert statement by Andrew Doorey, M.D., opining generally that failure to provide monitoring instructions was a gross deviation from the standard of care.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment after Russell failed to produce a fuller expert report; the trial court granted summary judgment and the Superior Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove negligence | Russell: negligence was obvious to laypersons; no expert needed | Defs: medical issues not obvious; expert proof required | Held: Expert testimony required; not a case of obvious negligence |
| Whether Dr. Doorey’s report suffices to establish standard of care and causation | Russell: Doorey’s report establishes breach and causation | Defs: Report is conclusory, not tied to defendants or to duties, and not within reasonable medical certainty | Held: Doorey’s report insufficient — too general, fails to specify duty/breach/causation for these defendants |
| Whether treating physician Wodzinski’s deposition supplies expert proof | Russell: Wodzinski’s testimony shows testing was ordered and supports negligence | Defs: Wodzinski was a fact witness and declined to give expert opinions | Held: Deposition did not provide expert opinion on standard of care or breach |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate for failure to produce adequate expert evidence | Russell: disputed sufficiency of evidence | Defs: undisputed lack of adequate expert opinions after discovery deadline | Held: Summary judgment appropriate because plaintiff failed to establish prima facie case via expert testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Malanchuk v. Sivchuk, 148 A.3d 860 (Pa. Super. 2016) (summary judgment standard; de novo review of legal questions)
- Fessenden v. Robert Packer Hosp., 97 A.3d 1225 (Pa. Super. 2014) (elements for res ipsa/obvious negligence exception in medical malpractice)
- Ditch v. Waynesboro Hosp., 917 A.2d 317 (Pa. Super. 2007) (expert testimony generally required absent obvious negligence)
- Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829 (Pa. Super. 2000) (failure to produce expert opinion precludes prima facie case)
- Vazquez v. CHS Prof’l Practice, P.C., 39 A.3d 395 (Pa. Super. 2012) (expert testimony required when negligence is not obvious)
- Eaddy v. Hamaty, 694 A.2d 639 (Pa. Super. 1997) (expert opinions must be to a reasonable degree of medical certainty)