Opinion
J-S33036-16 No. 1646 WDA 2015
05-04-2016
FATIMAH MUHAMMAD Appellant v. AMJAD ALI, M.D. Appellee
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
Appeal from the Order September 23, 2015
In the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County
Civil Division at No(s): 12078-2011 BEFORE: GANTMAN, P.J., OLSON, J., and FITZGERALD, J. MEMORANDUM BY GANTMAN, P.J.:
Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.
Appellant, Fatimah Muhammad, appeals pro se from the order entered in the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which granted the motion of Appellee, Amjad Ali, M.D., for preclusion of expert testimony at trial and for summary judgment. We affirm.
In its opinion, the trial court fully set forth the relevant facts and procedural history of this case. Therefore, we have no reason to restate them.
Appellant raises two issues for our review:
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR OF LAW WHEN EMPLOYING THE WRONG STANDARD OF REVIEW WHEN DETERMINING TO GRANT APPELLEE'S REQUEST TO [PRECLUDE APPELLANT FROM PRESENTING] EXPERT TESTIMONY AND [GRANTING APPELLEE'S] MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT...UNDER PA.R.[C].P. 1042.28?
WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED ERROR OF LAW UNDER THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE WHEN ENTERING A NEW AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER, ORDERING APPELLANT TO FILE A SUBSEQUENT EXPERT REPORT[,] WHICH ARBITRARILY PREJUDICE[D] THE DISMISSAL OF APPELLANT'S CASE BY SUMMARY JUDGMENT?(Appellant's Brief at 5).
Appellant's second issue appears to implicate the coordinate jurisdiction rule, which states: "[J]udges of coordinate jurisdiction sitting in the same case should not overrule each [other's] decisions." Commonwealth v. Starr , 541 Pa. 564, 573, 664 A.2d 1326, 1331 (1995). "[T]his coordinate jurisdiction rule falls squarely within the ambit of a generalized expression of the 'law of the case' doctrine. This doctrine refers to a family of rules which embody the concept that a court involved in the later phases of a litigated matter should not reopen questions decided by another judge of that same court or by a higher court in the earlier phases of the matter." Id. at 574, 664 A.2d at 1331. "Further, the limitations on the law of the case doctrine and on the coordinate jurisdiction rule are virtually identical.... Departure from either of these principles is allowed only in exceptional circumstances such as where there has been an intervening change in the controlling law, a substantial change in the facts or evidence giving rise to the dispute in the matter, or where the prior holding was clearly erroneous and would create a manifest injustice if followed." Id. at 575-76, 664 A.2d at 1332. Here, Appellant asserts the trial court wrongly ordered Appellant to file an expert report after she had already filed a certificate of merit. Appellant, however, confuses the filing a certificate of merit and the necessity for submitting a medical expert report during discovery, which are distinct requirements in a medical malpractice case. As presented Appellant's argument on the application of the coordinate jurisdiction rule/law of the case doctrine is misplaced. Therefore, we give Appellant's second issue no further attention.
Our standard of review of an order granting summary judgment requires us to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed an error of law. Mee v. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am., 908 A.2d 344, 347 (Pa.Super. 2006).
Judicial discretion requires action in conformity with law on facts and circumstances before the trial court after hearing and consideration. Consequently, the court abuses its discretion if, in resolving the issue for decision, it misapplies the law or exercises its discretion in a manner lacking reason. Similarly, the trial court abuses its discretion if it does not follow legal procedure.Miller v. Sacred Heart Hosp., 753 A.2d 829, 832 (Pa.Super. 2000) (internal citations omitted). Our scope of review is plenary. Pappas v. Asbel , 564 Pa. 407, 418, 768 A.2d 1089, 1095 (2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 938, 122 S.Ct. 2618, 153 L.Ed.2d 802 (2002). In reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment,
[W]e apply the same standard as the trial court, reviewing all the evidence of record to determine whether there exists a genuine issue of material fact. We view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and all doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving party. Only where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and it is clear that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law will summary judgment be entered. All doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue of a material fact must be resolved against the moving party.
Motions for summary judgment necessarily and directly implicate the plaintiff's proof of the elements of [a] cause of action. Summary judgment is proper if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion, including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury. In other words, whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense, which could be
established by additional discovery or expert report and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, summary judgment is appropriate. Thus, a record that supports summary judgment either (1) shows the material facts are undisputed or (2) contains insufficient evidence of facts to make out a prima facie cause of action or defense.Chenot v. A.P. Green Services , Inc., 895 A.2d 55, 61 (Pa.Super. 2006) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
Upon appellate review, we are not bound by the trial court's conclusions of law, but may reach our own conclusions.
As a general rule, "the negligence of a physician encompasses matters not within the ordinary knowledge and experience of laypersons"; therefore, "a medical malpractice plaintiff must present expert testimony to establish the applicable standard of care, the deviation from that standard, causation and the extent of the injury." Toogood v. Owen J. Rogal , D.D.S., P.C., 573 Pa. 245, 255, 824 A.2d 1140, 1145 (2003).
The expert testimony requirement in a medical malpractice action means that a plaintiff must present medical expert testimony to establish that the care and treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant fell short of the required standard of care and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury. Hence, causation is also a matter generally requiring expert testimony. A very narrow exception to the requirement of expert testimony in medical malpractice actions applies where the matter is so simple or the lack of skill or care so obvious as to be within the range of experience and comprehension of even non-professional persons, ...also conceptualized as the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur.Id. "The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a rule of circumstantial evidence which allows plaintiffs, without direct evidence of the elements of negligence, to present their case to the jury based on an inference of negligence." MacNutt v. Temple University Hosp., Inc., 932 A.2d 980, 988 (Pa.Super. 2007) (en banc), appeal denied, 596 Pa. 708, 940 A.2d 365 (2007). This doctrine cannot be employed "simply because the treatment caused injury or failed to yield the expected result. Courts have continually stated that an injury alone is insufficient to prove negligence in medical malpractice cases." Toogood , supra at 256, 824 A.2d at 1146. In medical malpractice cases, this doctrine is reserved for extraordinary circumstances where no explanation other than defendant's negligence exists. See , e.g., Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice , Inc., 589 Pa. 183, 907 A.2d 1061 (2006) (holding evidence supported res ipsa loquitur jury instruction, where quadriplegic patient who was left unaccompanied on medical examination table that lacked safety rails or other restraints, after surgical procedure, fell from table and suffered severe injuries, which purportedly resulted in his death; evidence sufficiently eliminated other responsible causes of plaintiff's injuries). Evidentiary decisions such as the ones involved in the present case are generally within the discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent an abuse of that discretion or misapplication of the law. Stumpf v. Nye , 950 A.2d 1032, 1035-36 (Pa.Super. 2008), appeal denied, 599 Pa. 711, 962 A.2d 1198 (2008).
After a thorough review of the record, the briefs of the parties, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable John A. Bozza, we conclude Appellant's remaining issue merits no relief. The trial court opinion carefully discusses and properly disposes of Appellant's remaining question. ( See Trial Court Opinion, filed September 23, 2015, at 3-9) (finding: Appellant failed to comply with case management orders or repeated discovery requests, despite numerous opportunities and extensions given her to overcome serious procedural deficiencies in her case; ultimately, Appellant did not provide qualified medical expert report to sustain her allegations of negligence; Appellant's claims implicated sophisticated medical judgment and skill that required professional medical evaluation; jury would be unable to conclude without expert testimony that Appellee's actions or omissions led to Appellant's alleged injuries; Appellant did not meet her burden to show, at this juncture of case, existence of any material issues of fact to justify going to trial without expert opinion or any other evidentiary manifestations of what actually occurred during course of medical care at issue, other than assertions contained in her initial pleading; Appellee was entitled to ascertain with some certainty the exact nature of case against him within reasonable time; Appellee waited four years since case was instituted and seven years since alleged incident of medical negligence; absent medial expert report, Appellant was properly precluded from going forward to trial without expert opinion/testimony; under these circumstances, summary judgment in Appellee's favor was warranted). We agree. The allegations in this case required expert opinion. Absent an expert report, Appellant could not make out a prima facie case of medical negligence. Accordingly, we affirm on the basis of the trial court opinion.
Order affirmed. Judgment Entered. /s/_________
Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq.
Prothonotary Date: 5/4/2016
Image materials not available for display.