Click Here To Call Now

Pittsburgh: 412-906-8102

Toll Free: 800-440-5297

Appeals court sends infant injury case back to Philadelphia

As technology continues to evolve, it continues to impact our surroundings in positive and negative ways. There is no industry that technological improvements do not affect, and that includes the medical industry. One Pennsylvania family, however, found out the hard way how technology can impact their medical care.

A lawsuit was heard by an appellate Pennsylvania court in order to determine where their medical malpracticee suit will be heard, since the alleged malpracticee of a Pennsylvania doctor occurred in a different county than where the infant was located. Essentially, a doctor was accused of not transmitting medical care recommendations in a timely matter, and that failure to transmit directly resulted in the infant's harm. Since the information was to be submitted electronically, it wasn't immediately clear where the case should be brought forth - in the county where the infant resided, or the medical facility where the doctor failed to transmit the medical care plan, in a way that is similar to a failure to diagnose suit.

With much debate between the plaintiffs and defendants, the decision was ultimately settled by Pennsylvania's appellate court. Their decision was to send the case back to Philadelphia, which is in a different county than where the doctor was located who allegedly did not send the information in a timely manner. This decision was in favor of plaintiff who appealed the decision of the lower court. The appellate court concluded that the doctor's alleged actions could qualify as medical malpracticee, citing the case Rostock v. Anzalone, which concluded that a doctor could be held liable for not informing a patient about test results or recommending appropriate treatment. As further proof for their decision, even if the alleged error were clerical, the doctor would still be subject to vicarious liability, because she would have an obligation to supervise her staff.

These two conclusions were the biggest determining factors in the appellate court's decision. It's possible that the defendants may appeal this decision to the highest Pennsylvania court, but it is unclear at this time if that will be put into motion. This situation is a huge landmark for cases involving an error or delay in treatment due to an action or in-action involving technology. This case, and the case quoted by the appellate court, will have a huge impact on how other similar cases are approached in medical malpracticee suits.

Source:, "Pa. Panel Returns Med Mal Suit To Philadelphia," Emma Cueto, July 20, 2017

No Comments

Leave a comment
Comment Information
How can We Help?

How Can We Help? Contact Our Office Today At 800-440-5297 Or Fill Out The Form Below.

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Rosen Louik & Perry, P.C.
437 Grant Street Suite 200, The Frick Building
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Phone: 412-281-4200
Fax: 412-281-2997
Pittsburgh Law Office Map

There is NO FEE unless recovery is made.

Rosen Louik Perry, P.C. Pittsburgh
412-906-8102 1-800-243-5297