Expert Testimony Requirement in Negligence Claims: Pennsylvania Court Affirms Summary Judgment

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reaffirmed the necessity of expert testimony in negligence cases involving complex medical causation. The case arose when a pro se plaintiff alleged he contracted a fungal infection after using the Jacuzzi at a defendant’s hotel. The defendant sought summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiff failed to provide expert evidence to substantiate his claim. Although the plaintiff later submitted an expert report from a molecular biologist, the court determined the expert was unqualified to establish the medical causation required to link the infection to the Jacuzzi. As a result, the trial court’s ruling in favor of the defendant was upheld on appeal.

On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania held, “[i]n some instances, expert testimony is required to support a plaintiff’s negligence claim.” The court reasoned that “[w]ith regard to claims of physical injury or impairment, expert medical testimony is necessary to establish the cause nexus of the injury to the tortious conduct in those cases where the connection is not obvious.” 

The court held that the plaintiff needed to present a qualified witness to establish that he contracted a fungal infection and that the source was the Jacuzzi. In analyzing the plaintiff’s expert report, the count found that the expert was not a medical doctor and could not opine, to a reasonable degree of scientific or medical certainty, that the plaintiff contracted the infection from the Jacuzzi. 

The Superior Court ruled that “[w]ithout a qualified, scientific or medical expert to support his claims, [the pro se plaintiff] could not maintain a negligence cause of action against [the defendant-hotel.]” As such, the Superior Court held that the trial court was correct in granting the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2025 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2024 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}