Tong-Summerford, A. v. Abington Mem. Hosp.
190 A.3d 631
Pa. Super. Ct.2018Background
- Decedent Marvin Summerford (age 88) was admitted to Abington Memorial Hospital (AMH) in late Nov. 2008; a nasogastric feeding tube was placed Dec. 2–3, 2008. Portable x‑rays were taken to confirm placement.
- On Dec. 3, 2008 technologist Jillian Nickel (AMH) took a lower‑chest/abdominal film; radiologist Kristin Crisci, M.D. (Radiology Group of Abington, P.C.) read the film and reported the tube terminated in the stomach when it actually entered the left lung. Feeding was started overnight.
- A subsequent x‑ray on Dec. 4 was interpreted as showing the tube in the lung; Summerford was pronounced dead that morning. Plaintiff (administrator of estate) brought wrongful death and survival claims alleging negligence by AMH (corporate and vicarious liability for technologist) and by Dr. Crisci/RGA (radiology negligence).
- After a five‑day jury trial the jury returned a $5,000,000 verdict ($1.5M wrongful death, $3.5M survival), apportioning liability AMH 25% / Crisci/RGA 75%. The trial court added Rule 238 delay damages, molded the verdict, and denied post‑trial motions; defendants appealed.
- On appeal the Superior Court affirmed, rejecting JNOV/non‑suit requests, evidentiary and expert‑qualification challenges, waiver arguments, and requests for remittitur/new trial on damages.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence against Dr. Crisci (JNOV/non‑suit) | Crisci failed to breach standard by misreading x‑ray; plaintiff’s expert only said she should have ordered more views, not that her reading itself was negligent; thus no prima facie case | Crisci: either non‑suit or JNOV because no expert opined she breached by misreading the actual study | Denied: expert testimony that she failed to recognize inadequate study and failed to order additional views was sufficient to submit liability to jury; post‑nonsuit testimony rendered nonsuit moot and JNOV inappropriate |
| Expert qualification / scope (Dr. Igidbashian and Dr. Abujudeh) | Plaintiff’s radiology expert competent to testify that deviations increased risk of harm; AMH argued scope exceeded report and qualifications for causation/operations; Crisci/RGA argued co‑defendant’s expert improperly vouched and opined beyond report | Defendants: experts lacked proper specialty for causation or exceeded report scope; testimony prejudicial | Denied: trial court did not abuse discretion — radiology experts had reasonable pretension to specialized knowledge; Igidbashian could opine on increased risk (not cause of death); Abujudeh’s testimony on image quality was admissible; objections either overruled properly or waived |
| Admission/use of remedial/disclosure materials and other evidence (e.g., 8/22/08 x‑ray, disclosure letter) | AMH: introduction of later disclosure letter (MCARE) and earlier AMH x‑ray and related testimony was improper, prejudicial, or outside fair scope and violated statute | Plaintiff: letter and films were part of medical records/history and not admission of liability; court instructed jury accordingly | Denied: issues largely waived for inadequate preservation; trial court found items were foundational/history and jury was instructed that disclosure is not an admission of liability |
| Excessiveness of damages / remittitur | Defendants argued awards excessive given decedent’s age, comorbidities, lack of economic loss evidence, and sedation; ask for remittitur or new trial on damages | Plaintiff: presented evidence (treatment notes, expert testimony) of conscious pain and suffering; jury discretion on damages | Denied: verdicts for wrongful death and survival were within reasonable limits; trial court did not abuse discretion nor did award shock sense of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- Toogood v. Owen J. Rogal, D.D.S., 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003) (elements of medical malpractice; duty, breach, causation, damages)
- V–Tech Services, Inc. v. Street, 72 A.3d 270 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard of review for JNOV)
- Montgomery v. S. Philadelphia Med. Group, Inc., 656 A.2d 1385 (Pa. Super. 1995) (standard for non‑suit)
- Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, 664 A.2d 525 (Pa. 1995) (liberal standard for expert qualification)
- Thompson v. Nason Hospital, 591 A.2d 703 (Pa. 1991) (hospital corporate negligence theory and duties)
- Renna v. Schadt, 64 A.3d 658 (Pa. Super. 2013) (standard for reviewing excessiveness of verdict)
- Hyrcza v. W Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc., 978 A.2d 961 (Pa. Super. 2009) (damage award review)
- Gunn v. Grossman, 748 A.2d 1235 (Pa. Super. 2000) (jury’s role in pain and suffering damages)