Vazquez v. CHS Professional Practice, P.C.
39 A.3d 395
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2012Background
- Ms. Vazquez sued CHS for negligent removal of a pain pump catheter, leaving a fragment in her shoulder, requiring a second arthroscopic procedure.
- She filed a certificate of merit under Pa.R.C.P. 1042.3(a)(3) claiming expert testimony was unnecessary.
- CHS moved for summary judgment under Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2, attaching a medical opinion that catheter breakage can occur without negligence.
- The trial court granted summary judgment, holding the facts were not within lay understanding and res ipsa loquitur did not apply.
- On appeal, Vazquez contends res ipsa loquitur should apply or expert testimony was unnecessary; CHS argues expert testimony is required and res ipsa fails.
- The Superior Court affirmed, holding expert testimony was required and res ipsa loquitur failed to meet its three-prong test under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether res ipsa loquitur applies here. | Vazquez argues the injury is self-evident and res ipsa should apply. | CHS contends the event and circumstances do not satisfy prongs of Restatement § 328D, given varying theories of breakage. | Res ipsa loquitur does not apply; not all prongs are satisfied. |
| Whether expert testimony is required to prove medical negligence. | Vazquez contends no expert is needed due to obvious lack of skill. | CHS asserts expert testimony is necessary to establish duty, breach, and causation. | Expert testimony is required to prove negligence; summary judgment proper. |
| Whether the 1042.3(a)(3) certificate precludes expert evidence for res ipsa. | Vazquez argues FDA approval or preemption forecloses defect considerations, affecting res ipsa. | CHS maintains the certificate binds the plaintiff to inability to introduce expert testimony on standard of care and causation. | Certificate does not bar expert testimony to establish res ipsa applicability; summary judgment affirmed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krapf v. St. Luke’s Hospital, 4 A.3d 642 (Pa.Super.2010) (standard for reviewing summary judgment is plenary)
- Coleman v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 6 A.3d 502 (Pa.Super.2010) (summary judgment standard and burden shifting)
- ADP, Inc. v. Morrow Motors Inc., 969 A.2d 1244 (Pa.Super.2009) (summary judgment considerations in context of burden of proof)
- Ertel v. Patriot-News Co., 544 Pa. 93 (1996) (plaintiff must prove essential facts to defeat summary judgment)
- Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc., 589 Pa. 183 (Pa.2006) (medical malpractice nexus and expert testimony requirement)
- Toogood v. Rogal, 573 Pa. 245 (Pa.2003) (res ipsa loquitur limited; expert testimony required for complex procedures)
- Leone v. Thomas, 428 Pa. Super. 217 (Pa. Super. 1993) (evidence on rarity and negligence sufficient for res ipsa under §328D)
- Bearfield v. Hauch, 407 Pa. Super. 624 (Pa. Super. 1991) ( Restatement § 328D application framework)
- Haver Mutual Ben. Ins. Co. v. Haver, 555 Pa. 534 (Pa. 1999) (elements of medical malpractice and expert testimony considerations)