Rutyna, A. v. Schweers, W.
177 A.3d 927
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2018Background
- In 2004 Mr. Rutyna underwent a laminectomy at UPMC that resulted in complications; the Rutynas retained attorney William Schweers to pursue a medical malpractice suit against Dr. Donaldson/UPMC.
- The medical-malpractice case was dismissed for failure to file a MCARE certificate of merit; the Rutynas then sued Schweers for legal malpractice and related claims, alleging failure to obtain necessary expert support and thus causing the dismissal.
- Procedural history was protracted: multiple summary-judgment rulings and remands by this Court; trial was eventually bifurcated so the medical-malpractice claim would be tried first.
- Plaintiffs’ primary medical expert, Dr. Mark Foster, was subject to a consent judgment with UPMC (entered April 29, 2016) barring him from testifying against UPMC; plaintiffs discovered this weeks before the scheduled June 2016 trial and moved for a continuance to obtain a replacement expert.
- The trial court denied the continuance, granted defendant’s motion in limine excluding Dr. Foster under MCARE qualifications, and entered judgment dismissing the malpractice claims for lack of a qualified medical expert to prove the underlying medical negligence (and thus legal malpractice).
- On appeal the Superior Court reversed and remanded, holding the trial court abused its discretion by denying the continuance because plaintiffs learned of their expert’s disqualification only weeks before trial through no fault of their counsel and were prejudiced by the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court abused discretion in denying continuance to secure replacement expert | Rutyna: denial prevented them from presenting essential expert proof discovered unavailable shortly before trial; they acted promptly and diligently | Schweers: plaintiffs were not diligent; delay would prejudice defense and key witnesses; case is old and continuance unwarranted | Reversed — court abused discretion; denial prejudiced plaintiffs and additional seven-month delay was not unreasonable |
| Whether dismissal with prejudice was proper because plaintiffs lacked a medical expert | Rutyna: lack of expert caused by consent judgment precluding Foster — not plaintiffs’ fault; dismissal extinguished plaintiffs’ ability to prove claims | Schweers: plaintiffs failed to secure expert and had prior notice of weaknesses; dismissal appropriate as plaintiffs cannot prove underlying medical malpractice | Reversed — dismissal improper where denial of continuance foreclosed plaintiffs’ ability to present a case |
| Whether Dr. Foster was qualified under MCARE to testify | Rutyna: Foster should have been allowed to testify (or at least plaintiffs should have time to replace him) | Schweers: Foster lacked recent subspecialty practice and was disqualified under MCARE; court properly excluded him | Court did not resolve MCARE qualif. issue on appeal because reversal of continuance denial made it unnecessary to address remaining issues |
| Whether sanctions were warranted for alleged interference with plaintiffs’ expert | Rutyna: Schweers’ insurer/defense counsel interfered with Foster, warranting sanctions and relief | Schweers: no interference; plaintiffs failed to show causation or misconduct | Court found no need to decide sanctions given reversal on continuance; did not award sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Rizzo v. Haines, 555 A.2d 58 (Pa. 1989) (elements of legal malpractice claim)
- Wolloch v. Aiken, 756 A.2d 5 (Pa. Super. 2000) (medical malpractice requires expert to prove deviation from standard of care)
- Rivera v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 832 A.2d 487 (Pa. Super. 2003) (limitations on nonsuit; summary-judgment standard discussion)
- Papalia v. Montour Auto. Serv. Co., 682 A.2d 343 (Pa. Super. 1996) (factors for evaluating continuance requests)
- Foster v. UPMC South Side Hosp., 2 A.3d 655 (Pa. Super. 2010) (background on Dr. Foster and relevance to expert credibility/qualification)
- Geiger v. Rouse, 715 A.2d 454 (Pa. Super. 1997) (diligence required when seeking continuance for absent witness)
- Mazzenga v. Dorfman, 415 A.2d 1248 (Pa. Super. 1979) (favoring trial on the merits over strict calendar enforcement)
- Budget Laundry Co. v. Munter, 298 A.2d 55 (Pa. 1972) (courts must balance calendar management with individual litigant rights)