Pennsylvania Supreme Court Affirms Holding On MCARE Expert Testimony
Posted On Behalf of Schmidt Kramer Injury Lawyers on May 15, 2012 in Birth Injury
Below are the links to the opinions by Justices Saylor and Greenspan in the 3-3 decision (Justice McCaffery did not participate) issued January 29, 2009 in Gbur v. Golio. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirms the trial court and Superior Court opinions which allowed an expert in radiation oncology to testify in a medical malpractice case involving a urologist. The lowers courts opined that the expert and his background was in the same sub-specialty and qualified under Section 512(c) of the MCARE Act. The Supreme Court affirms but writes 2 opinions since the Court is split on the reasons for affirmation. Justice Saylor would affirm because the motion in limine and trial testimony did not fully develop the objection under Section 512 to disqualify the expert. Justice Greenspan would find that the record was developed but the expert had sufficient background and credentials to qualify to testify as an expert under Section 512 of the MCARE Act. Therefore, the Superior Court is affirmed and the issue that the Court was reviewing about a medical expert of a sub-specialty testifying is preserved for another day.
Justice Saylor Opinion Link
Justice Greenspan Link
Scott B. Cooper