Sedlitsky v. Pareso
| Citation | 425 Pa.Super. 327,625 A.2d 71 |
| Parties | Marlene SEDLITSKY v. James D. PARESO, M.D., Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1993 |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
John W. Jordan, IV, Pittsburgh, for appellant.
Harry S. Cohen, Pittsburgh, for appellee.
Before TAMILIA, HUDOCK and HOFFMAN, JJ.
This appeal is from the judgment entered on April 29, 1992 in favor of appellee, Marlene Sedlitsky. Appellant, James D. Pareso, MD, presents two questions on appeal:
I. Has the federal law concerning the reporting of payment of medical malpractice judgments rendered the suggested "Irrelevant Considerations" charge factually incorrect and prejudicial to defendants in medical malpractice actions?
II. Were the trial court's instructions regarding the requirement that other possible causes of plaintiff's injury be sufficiently eliminated misleading and not adequate to clarify the issue?
Appellant's Brief at 3. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Appellee commenced a negligence action against appellant seeking damages for vocal cord paralysis resulting from appellant's negligent performance of a thyroidectomy. A trial held in October, 1988, resulted in a judgment in favor of appellant. Following the denial of post-trial motions, this court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court should have instructed the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. See Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 400 Pa.Super. 1, 582 A.2d 1314 (1990), appeal denied, 527 Pa. 673, 594 A.2d 659 (1991). At the conclusion of the second trial, commencing on September 10, 1991, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee. Appellant filed post-trial motions which were denied. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in instructing the jury with the "irrelevant considerations" charge. Specifically, he asserts that a recent federal law concerning the reporting of payment of medical malpractice judgments has rendered the charge factually incorrect and prejudicial. We disagree.
The standard "irrelevant considerations" charge which the court presented to the jury provides as follows:
A medical malpractice case, such as this, is a civil action for damages and nothing more. The sole issue is whether the plaintiff has suffered injuries as a result of the defendant's negligence, and is thus entitled to monetary compensation for those injuries. This case does not involve punishment of the defendant, or even criticism of his professional abilities, beyond the facts of this case. This case does not involve the defendant's reputation, his medical practice, or his rights as a licensed physician. Therefore, no thought should be given to these irrelevant considerations in reaching your verdict in this case.
A recently enacted provision of the federal Health Care Quality Improvement Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 11101 et seq., requires the disclosure to the Secretary of Health and Human Services of certain information by entities making a payment in settlement or satisfaction of a medical malpractice claim. 1 Appellant contends that while the "irrelevant considerations" instruction may have once been warranted, "under the new law it falsely trivializes the importance of the case to the defendant physician." Appellant's Brief at 10.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently addressed a similar issue in Levine v. Rosen, 532 Pa. 512, 616 A.2d 623 (1992). In Levine, the Court was faced with the question of whether a jury should be instructed regarding the new federal statute. Although the present question of whether the enactment of the new federal statute makes the "irrelevant considerations" instruction improper was not before the Court, the Court's holding and reasoning are instructive in the instant case. The Court stated that
[t]he purpose of the ["irrelevant considerations"] instruction is to explain to the jurors that they may not consider the effect, if any, that a verdict may have on the defendant's reputation, practice, or license. It simply does not matter whether the defendant's reputation, practice, or license is or is not affected. The only issue properly before the jury is whether the defendant was negligent. The defendant may be found negligent whether the verdict has no effect on his reputation, practice, or license, or if the verdict has a drastic impact.
A malpractice claim questions whether the defendant's professional conduct fell below the proper standard of care. A defendant who is negligent is no less liable for the malpractice claim if he is required to comply with the federal reporting requirement than if no requirement existed. The imposition of the reporting requirement is absolutely irrelevant to a jury's consideration of whether a defendant has committed malpractice.
Levine, 532 Pa. at 518, 616 A.2d at 627.
We recognize that the new federal statute may cause an unfavorable judgment in a medical malpractice action to negatively impact upon a physician's reputation or practice. Nevertheless, that result is not in conflict with the purpose of the "irrelevant considerations" instruction and does not call into question the validity of the instruction. Rather, our Supreme Court decided in Levine that the potential harm to the physician caused by compliance with the federal statute is among the factors a jury hearing a medical malpractice case is not to consider. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in reciting the "irrelevant considerations" charge.
Appellant next argues that the trial court's instruction regarding the requirement that other possible causes of appellee's injury be sufficiently eliminated was misleading and did not adequately clarify the issue. Specifically, he refers to the following portion of the jury charge dealing with the elements of res ipsa loquitur: 2
Two, that other responsible causes, such as cancer of the laryngeal nerve or excessive bleeding during the operation had been sufficiently eliminated by the evidence, but it is not necessary that the plaintiff exclude all other possible causes for her injuries.
In light of trial testimony offered by appellant's expert witness, appellant asserts that an unavoidable stretch injury was another possible responsible cause that the jury should have considered. Specifically, appellant refers to the testimony of his expert indicating that there may have been a temporary, unnoticeable adhesion of the laryngeal nerve to the back of the thyroid gland, making it difficult to move the gland without stretching the nerve. Appellant thus claims that the trial court erred in refusing to include the possibility of this condition in the above instruction to the jury. We disagree.
"The primary purpose of a court's charge to the jury is to apprise the members of the jury, in an understandable manner, of the legal principles by which they must decide the case." Hawthorne v. Dravo Corp., 352 Pa.Super. 359, 368, 508 A.2d 298, 303, appeal denied, 514 Pa. 617, 521 A.2d 932 (1987). "A motion for a new trial based upon the sufficiency of the jury charge will only be granted when the court determines that the charge in its entirety and against the background of the evidence was erroneous and might have prejudiced appellant." Beechwood Commons Condominium Ass'n v. Beechwood Commons Associates, Ltd., 397 Pa.Super. 217, 227, 580 A.2d 1, 6 (1990) (citation omitted). Erroneous jury instructions may be the basis for a new trial if it is shown that the instructions were fundamentally in error and might have been responsible for the verdict. Ott v. Buehler Lumber Co., 373 Pa.Super. 515, 520, 541 A.2d 1143, 1146 (1988); Hawthorne, 352 Pa.Super. at 368, 508 A.2d at 303.
Read in its entirety, we find no error in the trial court's instruction to the jury. The court did not limit the possible responsible causes to the two mentioned, but rather by using the expression "such as" included them merely as examples. The jury was made aware that another possible responsible cause was an unavoidable stretch injury. In summarizing the testimony of appellant's expert witness, Dr. Charles Watson, the court stated that:
Dr. Charles Watson, a professor of surgery at the University of Pittsburgh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cannon v. Tabor
...is to clarify the legal principles involved so that the jury may comprehend the questions that it must decide. Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 425 Pa.Super. 327, 332, 625 A.2d 71, 74 (1993); Lee v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 420 Pa.Super. 423, 430-31, 616 A.2d 1045, 1049 (1992); Spearing v. Starcher, 3......
-
Empire Properties, Inc. v. Equireal, Inc.
...is shown that the instructions were fundamentally in error and might have been responsible for the verdict." Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 425 Pa.Super. 327, 332, 625 A.2d 71, 74 (1993). With respect to Empire's burden of proof, the trial court charged the jury as Plaintiff has the burden of proving......
-
Hyrcza v. West Penn Allegheny Health System, Inc.
...any potential impact of the verdict, including complying with federal reporting requirements. ¶ 31 Subsequently, in Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 425 Pa.Super. 327, 625 A.2d 71 (1993), an appellant challenged the same jury instruction, asserting that the Health Care Act rendered the charge factually......
-
Kovach v. Solomon
...instruction may have been responsible for the verdict. O'Brien v. Martin, 432 Pa.Super. 323, 638 A.2d 247 (1994); Sedlitsky v. Pareso, 425 Pa.Super. 327, 625 A.2d 71, 74 (1993); Smith v. Brooks, 394 Pa.Super. 327, 575 A.2d 926 (1990). A charge to the jury which is not warranted by the evide......