Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center, No. 77 MAP 2007; Decided September 29, 2010; By Justice Todd; 5 A.3d 212 (Pa., 2010)

After reargument, Pennsylvania Supreme Court reaffirms its decision to permit nurses to offer causation opinions.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania reaffirmed its decision to permit nurses to present expert testimony that a breach in the nursing standard of care caused a plaintiff's condition. In its 2009 decision of the same case, the Supreme Court, sua sponte, overruled its 1997 opinion, Flanagan v. Labe, 547 Pa. 254, 690 A.2d 183 (1997), which precluded nurses from offering causation testimony, as the Professional Nursing Law does not permit a nurse to make a medical diagnosis. After hearing reargument, the Court rejected the medical defendants' position that it was improper for the Court to overrule Flanagan when the parties had not raised the propriety of Flanagan as an issue. The Court cited numerous instances where it had overruled cases sua sponte. The medical defendants' argument that Flanagan was properly decided was also rejected by the Court, which held the limitations on nursing testimony in Flanagan operate as an evidentiary rule that runs afoul of the liberal standard for expert testimony set forth in Rule 702, which permits expert testimony of witnesses qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, training or education." The Court emphasized that nothing in the Professional Nursing Law prohibits nurses from achieving the requisite level of expert qualifications by attending medical school, reading medical textbooks, or working alongside a physician. In reaffirming its 2009 decision, the Court solidified and simplified the ways by which plaintiff's may present necessary expert testimony on causation in medical malpractice matters involving violations of the nursing standard of care.

Case Law Alert - 1st Qtr 2011