1/28/2024 0 Comments Dr panzarella![]() The power to grant a new trial lies inherently with the trial court and we will not reverse its decision absent a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case. Thus, reasoned the trial court, a directed verdict should have been granted for defendants as to plaintiff's third claim.Īppellate review of a trial court's decision to grant or deny a new trial is subject to an abuse of discretion standard. 540 (1927), for its conclusion that a physician cannot be held liable for failure to provide proper post-operative care where the patient fails to cooperate in post-operative treatment. Specifically, the trial court relied on Gentile v. Following timely post-trial motions, the trial court granted defendants a new trial on the basis that the jury was improperly permitted to consider the negligence of Panzarella in rendering post-operative care to plaintiff. The gross verdict of $243,526.51 was then molded to $146,115.91 to reflect the apportionment of liability. Rather, the verdict questionnaire asked only, "Was negligent?" The jury returned a verdict finding both parties negligent and apportioning sixty per cent (60%) liability to defendant-Panzarella and forty per cent (40%) liability to plaintiff. However, the jury was not asked to make specific findings as to each of the three issues of liability. Following the presentation of evidence, the jury was instructed that they could consider the alleged contributory negligence of plaintiff in *27 relation to his claim of negligent after-care only and not in relation to the two other claims. ![]() Defendants raised in defense the failure of plaintiff to attend numerous post-operative appointments. Plaintiff subsequently brought this action against defendants alleging negligence in 1) failing to properly align his patella during surgery, 2) failing to discover and repair interior knee damage and 3) failure to insure proper patella alignment during follow-up visits. ![]() Panzarella, M.D., and Geisinger Medical Group (defendants). Ferguson (plaintiff), sustained a knee injury and was treated by defendants, Marius H. The evidence educed at trial reveals that plaintiff, Lee E. The trial court granted a new trial on the basis that it had improperly refused to direct a verdict in favor of defendants as to plaintiff's third claim, alleging negligent post-operative care. The parties in this medical malpractice action present cross-appeals from the JOrder granting defendants' motion for a new trial and denying their motions for judgment n.o.v. Seneca, Harrisburg, for appellees.īefore CAVANAUGH, McEWEN and TAMILIA, JJ. *26 Patricia Corbett, Scranton, for appellant. Panzarella") and Geisinger Clinic t/d/b/a Geisinger Medical Group-Wyoming County. and Geisinger Medical Group.Īppeal of Marius H.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |