Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr.
Citation | 5 A.3d 212 |
Parties | Rodger A. FREED, Appellee v. GEISINGER MEDICAL CENTER, and HealthSouth Corporation, Formerly known as HealthSouth Rehabilitation Corporation, and HealthSouth of Nittany Valley, Inc., t/d/b/a HealthSouth Nittany Valley Rehabilitation Hospital, Appellants. |
Decision Date | 29 September 2010 |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Kim Kocher, White and Williams, L.L.P., Philadelphia, Daniel Eric Lohr, Geisinger System Services, Danville, for Geisinger Medical Center.
Timothy J. MacMahon, John Jacob Hare, Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin, P.C., Philadelphia, for HealthSouth Corporation.
Jan Sonja Barnett, for Rodger A. Freed.
George Gerasimos Rassias, Curran & Rassias, L.L.P., Media, for amicus curiae PA Trial Lawyers Association.
BEFORE: CASTILLE, C.J., SAYLOR, EAKIN, BAER, TODD, GREENSPAN, JJ.
OPINION ON REARGUMENT
The background of this matter, in which we granted reargument, is set forth in Freed v. Geisinger Medical Center, et al., 601 Pa. 233, 971 A.2d 1202 (2009), wherein this Court affirmed the Superior Court's reversal of the trial court's grant of a compulsory nonsuit in favor of DefendantsGeisinger Medical Center and HealthSouth Corporation (collectively, "Geisinger"). Therein, we addressed whether, as a matter of law, a nurse may testify in a negligence action that a breach of the nursing standard of care caused a plaintiff's medical condition. Ultimately, we held that an otherwise competent and properly qualified nurse is not prohibited by the Professional Nursing Law, 63 P.S. §§ 211 et seq., from giving expert testimony at trial regarding medical causation. In so holding, we overruled sua sponte our prior decision in Flanagan v. Labe, 547 Pa. 254, 690 A.2d 183 (1997), wherein this Court had held a nurse was precluded from offering opinion testimony regarding the specific identity and cause of a medical condition because such testimony constituted a medical diagnosis, which a nurse is precluded from making under the Professional Nursing Law. In our original opinion, we concluded that Flanagan was inherently flawed because it applied a statute-the Professional Nursing Law-governing the specific practice of nursing to the distinct area of expert testimony in a court of law, which is governed by rules of evidence, rules of civil procedure, and common law rules regarding expert witnesses. We further determined that our decision applied retroactively to the parties in the instant case, and, therefore, that the trial court should, on remand, assess the competency of plaintiff Rodger Freed's witness, a registered nurse, to testify regarding the relevant nursing standard of care and medical causation under the common law standards set forth in Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc., 541 Pa. 474, 664 A.2d 525 (1995), or the Medicare Availability and Reduction of Error Act ("MCARE Act"), if applicable.1
Geisinger filed a petition for reargument, asserting that this Court, in sua sponte overruling Flanagan and applying our decision retroactively, denied it its due process rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard. Geisinger further argued that, because Freed did not challenge the validity of Flanagan at trial or on appeal, or request that it be overruled, he waived any challenge to the validity of Flanagan. This Court recognized that, prior to overruling decisional law sua sponte, the interests of all parties are best served by allowing the participants an opportunity to present argument. Accordingly, we granted reargument to allow both parties to address the continued viability of Flanagan, as well as the question of any waiver of this issue. The parties fully briefed these points, and presented oral argument before this Court on December 2, 2009.
In its Supplemental Brief, Geisinger first argues that Freed waived any right to challenge the validity of this Court's decision in Flanagan because he did not raise or preserve his argument (a) before the trial court; (b) in his Statement of Matters Complained of on Appeal filed pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925; (c) in his brief to the Superior Court; or (d) in his brief to this Court. Conversely, Freed argues that it is the trial court's Rule 1925(a) opinion that serves as the basis of appellate review, and because the trial court based its decision on Flanagan, the continuing viability of Flanagan is, at least implicitly, before this Court.
While we granted reargument, inter alia, on the issue of waiver, upon reflection, we conclude that consideration of traditional principles of waiver are inapt to the broader issue before us, namely, Geisinger's objection to this Court's sua spontereconsideration and overruling of prior precedent. Thus, we turn to that question.
We begin by noting there have been numerous occasions in which this Court has sua sponte reconsidered and overruled prior precedent. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Collins, 585 Pa. 45, 53-61, 888 A.2d 564, 568-73 (2005) ( ); Cimaszewski v. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 582 Pa. 27, 45, 868 A.2d 416, 427 (2005) ( ); Commonwealth v. Freeman, 573 Pa. 532, 545-63, 827 A.2d 385, 393-403 (2003) ( ); Commonwealth v. Grant, 572 Pa. 48, 67, 813 A.2d 726, 737-38 (2002) ( ); Commonwealth v. Albrecht, 554 Pa. 31, 45, 720 A.2d 693, 700 (1998) ( ).
The concerns that support sua sponte reconsideration and overruling of prior precedent are several. First, parties are unlikely-understandably so-to ask for reconsideration of what appears to be controlling precedent. Indeed, where parties are faced with precedent that appears unfavorable to their position, they are more likely to attempt to distinguish factually their case from the established precedent.
Further, parties before this Court generally are focused on the application of precedent to their specific case. In fact, the parties may not be aware of the impact or implication of the same precedent in cases involving different factual or procedural circumstances. Rather, it is this Court's function and responsibility to consider the broader picture, including the impact of precedent beyond the facts of an individual case, and the interplay between established precedent in varying areas of the law. The need for corrective action in cases such as Albrecht, Grant, Freeman, and Collins became apparent precisely because of this Court's problematic experience with settled doctrine.
Finally, there is no absolute jurisprudential bar to this Court's sua sponte reconsideration of precedent. As noted above, we have reconsidered prior decisions sua sponte on numerous occasions. The United States Supreme Court also has decided cases on grounds not argued in the lower courts or in the petitions for certiorari. See, e.g., Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U.S. 73, 77, 111 S.Ct. 415, 112 L.Ed.2d 374 (1990) ( ); Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 876, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (Jan. 21, 2010) ( ); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 81 S.Ct. 1684, 6 L.Ed.2d 1081 (1961) ( ); Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938) ( ).
In the instant case, while neither party argued that Flanagan should be overruled, the vitality of that decision was antecedent to the issue raised by Geisinger, namely, whether the Superior Court properly determined that Flanagan was distinguishable from the instant case because it involved no medical diagnosis. Upon review, we determined that the Superior Court's decision was, indeed, in conflict with Flanagan. However, in reviewing and applying Flanagan to the facts of the instant case, the tension between Flanagan and the rules of evidence, the rules of civil procedure, and the common law pertaining to expert testimony became apparent. Accordingly, it was appropriate for this Court to examine the viability of Flanagan in rendering our decision. Furthermore, we have now provided both parties the full opportunity for briefing and reargument.2 Of course, as we recognized and addressed in our original opinion, the ultimate determination of whether it is appropriate for this Court to overrule prior precedent depends on a number of factors, all of which are implicated under the doctrine of stare decisis. That doctrine, however, does not control the threshold issue of our authority to sua sponte address arguments which...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Interest of T.W.
...possesses the "authority to sua sponte address arguments which are clearly implicated in the cases before us." Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., 607 Pa. 225, 5 A.3d 212, 216 (2010). Occasionally, we are required to address issues squarely encompassed by the question presented in fulfilling "thi......
-
Mohn v. Bucks County Republican Committee
... ... See Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., 601 Pa. 233, 971 A.2d 1202, 1212 (2009), on ... ...
-
Commonwealth v. Alexander
...precedent may be so questionable as to warrant overruling even when the parties have not raised the point. Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr. , 607 Pa. 225, 5 A.3d 212, 215 (2010) ("We begin by noting there have been numerous occasions in which this Court has sua sponte reconsidered and overruled......
-
Schmidt v. Boardman Co.
... ... See Cafazzo v. Cent. Med. Health Servs., Inc., 542 Pa. 526, 531, 668 A.2d 521, 524 (1995) ... See, e.g., Freed v. Geisinger Med. Ctr., 601 Pa. 233, 971 A.2d 1202 (2009) (overruling ... ...