Superior Court Reverses Nonsuit, Holds Trial Court Bound by Prior Ruling on Expert Qualification

In her suit, the pro se plaintiff alleged negligent placement of leg restraints during gall bladder surgery. As she alleged a deviation from the professional standard of care, she was required to file a certificate of merit pursuant to Rule 1042.3.

The appellate court previously ruled that the plaintiff’s expert was an “appropriate licensed professional” under Rule 1042.3(e). Prior to trial, the defendant moved to exclude the plaintiff’s expert testimony regarding the standard of care, and the trial court limited his testimony solely to causation. The trial court granted a compulsory nonsuit, finding that the plaintiff lacked a duty breach. 

The Superior Court reversed the nonsuit, finding that once the court accepted the plaintiff’s expert as a qualified expert, the trial court was bound to that determination. 

This decision highlights issue preclusion; once an appellate court determines an expert is qualified, lower courts cannot re-litigate this issue. 

_{Case Law Alerts, 3rd Quarter, July 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 © 2025 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}