¶ 1 In this medical malpractice action, Appellant Vincenza Cangemi originally sought to recover wrongful death and survival damages from Appellees Alfonso A. Emmolo, M.D., Michael Cone, D.O. and Northwest Medical Center on a theory of failure to diagnose an abdominal aneurysm. Prior to trial, Dr. Cone and the Northwest Medical Center were dismissed from the case on summary judgment. 1 A jury trial against the remaining physician resulted in a verdict for the defense. In special interrogatories, the jury found Dr. Emmolo was negligent but determined his negligence was not a substantial faсtor in causing Mr. Cangemi’s death, resulting in a defense verdict. Post-trial motions were denied by the trial court. Appellant appeals both the grant of summary judgment in favor of Northwest Medical Center and the judgment entered following the denial of post-trial motions. For the following reasons, we reverse and remand for a new trial as to both Dr. Emmolo and Northwest.
¶ 2 According to the tеstimony at trial, Michael Cangemi appeared at the Northwest Medical Center Emergency Room on September 27, 1992 complaining of abdominal bloating, discomfort, weakness аnd vomiting. He was examined by Dr. Davidson, the emergency room doctor. Dr. Davidson ordered an abdominal x-ray and a chest x-ray. At that time, Mr. Cangemi was admitted to the hospital under the service of Dr. Emmolo, his family physician, who was also on staff at the hospital. It is undisputed that the x-ray disclosed the presence of an abdominal aortic aneurysm. However, according tо Dr. Emmo-lo, he never received a copy of the x-ray or the x-ray report. Unfortunately, Mr. Can-gemi was released from the hospital, and the aneurysm was not diagnosed at that time by Dr. Emmolo as the source of Mr. Cangemi’s internal bleeding. Over the next two months there was continued treatment by Dr. Emmolo for what Dr. Emmolo suspected to be anemia and gastrointestinal bleeding due to diverticulosis. Finally, on November 19,1992, Mr. Cange-mi again went to the emergency room. He was seen by Dr. Cone. Again, the source of his internal bleeding was undiag-
¶3 The first issue we will address is whether the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We note the standard of review of the denial of a motion for а new trial is not different than the grant of a new trial.
Livelsberger v. Kreider,
Our standard of review in denying a motion for a new trial is to decide whether the trial court committed an error of law which controlled the оutcome of the case or committed an abuse of discretion. Randt v. Abex Coloration,448 Pa.Super. 224 ,671 A.2d 228 , 232 (1996). A new trial will be granted on the grounds that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence where the verdict is so contrary to the evidence it shocks one’s sense of justice. Watson v. American Home Assurance Company,454 Pa.Super. 293 ,685 A.2d 194 , 198 (1996) appeal denied,549 Pa. 704 ,700 A.2d 443 (1997). An appellant is not entitled to a new trial where the evidence is conflicting and the finder of fact could have decidеd either way. Id
Kruczkowska v. Winter,
¶ 4 Appellant claims the jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence so as to warrant a new trial where the jury found Dr. Emmolo negligent but also found his negligence was not a substantial factor in the death of Mr. Cangemi. Appellant complains the verdict is contrary to the evidence in that the appellant’s expert Dr. Gramlich established causation which wаs uncontested by appellees.
¶ 5 At trial, Dr. Gramlich testified that had Dr. Emmolo looked at the x-ray and the x-ray report from September 27th, he would have seen the aneurysm and timely diagnosed it before it ruptured. She opined that at the time the x-ray was taken in September of 1992 there was a high probability that surgery would have been successful. In her opinion, Mr. Can-gemi’s chance for survival became highly improbable with the delay of surgery until after the aneurysm ruptured. Dr. Gram-lich testified “with elective surgery, he had a very high probability of a good outcome and once ruptured, the probability of a good outcome is significantly lower. In fact, I don’t ever remember sending a patient to the O.R. with a ruptured aneurysm who survived.” N.T., 1/19/99, at 207.
¶ 6 We are mindful of the fact that where evidence has been presented establishing conduct by a physician which increased a risk of a specific harm to the patient and evidence that the specific harm did in fact occur, causation must still be proven.
See Mitzelfelt v. Kamrin,
¶ 7 Next we turn to the issue of whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of Northwest Medical Center. Our scope of review is plenary when reviewing the propriety of a trial court’s entry of summary judgment.
Billman v. Saylor,
¶ 8 Appellant sought to include Northwest in this case under a theory of corporate nеgligence. Generally, a claim of corporate negligence requires that in cases where a hospital’s negligence is not obvious, plaintiff must establish through expert testimony that a hospital’s acts deviated from an accepted standard of care and that the deviation was a substantial factor in causing plaintiff’s harm.
Matthews v. Clarion Hospital,
¶ 9 In the present case, the trial court found that “the duty to formulate and adopt adequate rules and policies surrounding the delivery of x-rays and radiologist’s reports are not beyond that of the average lay person.” Trial Court Opinion, 1/15/99, at 3. We agree. Yet, the trial court faults the Appellant because her expert does not allege any negligence of the hospital in failing to make these x-ray results available in a manner other than their standard procedure, implying an expert оpinion is necessary. We conclude expert testimony is not necessary in this case because the issue is simple and the want of care is so obvious; when the hospital’s radiologist has a report that suggests Mr. Cangemi has an abdominal aneurysm and the attending physician does not get the report, it is either because of the negligence of the hospital or the negligence of the physician. Appellant’s expert opined that had Dr. Emmolo received this report, he would have made a proper timely diagnosis and realized Mr. Cangеmi was suffering from a leaking aneurysm. By alleging that he never received the report, Dr. Emmolo in effect is pointing the finger at the hospital for failing to make the report available. Accordingly, it is a factual dis-
¶ 10 Order granting summary judgment and order denying post-trial motions reversed. Case remanded for a new trial. Jurisdiction relinquished.
Notes
. Appellants did not contest the Motion for Summary Judgment by Defendant Dr. Cone, nor is the Order granting it in favor of Dr. Cone the subject of this appeal.
. Because we reverse and remand on this basis, we will not address Appellant's remaining claims of trial error concerning judgment not withstanding the verdict and the jury instruction.