Verdicts

MCARE Act Not Applicable to Expert Testimony When Nurse, Not Physician, Is Defendant

A Pennsylvania appeals court has ruled that a trial court did not err in finding that there was no authority for the proposition that ' 1303.512 of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act governed expert qualifications for testimony regarding claims of nursing negligence. Ciechoski v. Ca'Dieux, PICS Case No. 15-1084 (Pa. Super. July 8, 2015) (memorandum) Ott, J. (12 pages).

On Nov. 14, 2009, a pregnant Leslie Proffitt was admitted to Phoenixville Hospital and taken to the labor and delivery unit, where she was hooked up to a fetal heart monitor. In the early morning hours of Nov. 15, 2009, the monitor indicated that the baby's heart rate had dropped to a below-normal level. Nurse Christine Winter was the first staff member to arrive at Proffitt's side after the drop in the baby's heart rate. She attempted to adjust Proffitt's position in order to get the baby's heart rate to return to normal. Nurse Lana Jones-Sandy arrived at Proffitt's side a bit later. Ultimately, the baby, plaintiff Lillian M Ciechoski, was delivered by emergency caesarean section. The baby suffered hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, a brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation prior to her delivery. At about one year old, Ciechoski was diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Ciechoski, through her mother, filed this medical malpractice action against Phoenixville Hospital and related parties.

A jury found the hospital responsible, through the actions of its nurses, for the injuries the plaintiff suffered at birth and awarded her over $32 million. On appeal, the hospital argued that the trial court erred in denying a motion to prevent nurse Cydney Menihan from testifying on behalf of the plaintiff for lack of qualifications under ' 1303.512 of the MCARE Act. Under ' 1303.512, “[n]o person shall be competent to offer an expert medical opinion in a medical professional liability action against a physician unless that person possesses sufficient education, training, knowledge and experience to provide credible, competent testimony and fulfills the additional qualification set forth in this section as applicable.”

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court's observation that there was no authority for the proposition that ' 1303.512 governed expert qualifications for testimony regarding claims of nursing negligence. Rather, subsection (a) specifically limits the application of the rule to those persons offering “an expert medical opinion in a medical profession liability action against a physician.” Menihan did not offer an opinion regarding the care provided by any physician; she testified only as to the standard of care regarding the nursing staff. The court noted that while the Act changed the standards for expert qualifications in offering testimony against a physician, the general standards for expert qualification still apply for nursing testimony.

The record established that Menihan was actively licensed as a nurse in Rhode Island and Florida and that she had been a nurse for 40 years. She worked in various aspects of labor and delivery throughout that time, and taught at Brown University. Moreover, Menihan was the sole awardee of a grant to study sudden infant death and electronic fetal monitoring patterns. After considering the record, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's allowing Menihan to provide expert testimony regarding nursing standard of care. As such, the hospital was not entitled to relief on this expert testimony issue.

'

MCARE Act Not Applicable to Expert Testimony When Nurse, Not Physician, Is Defendant

A Pennsylvania appeals court has ruled that a trial court did not err in finding that there was no authority for the proposition that ' 1303.512 of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act governed expert qualifications for testimony regarding claims of nursing negligence. Ciechoski v. Ca'Dieux, PICS Case No. 15-1084 (Pa. Super. July 8, 2015) (memorandum) Ott, J. (12 pages).

On Nov. 14, 2009, a pregnant Leslie Proffitt was admitted to Phoenixville Hospital and taken to the labor and delivery unit, where she was hooked up to a fetal heart monitor. In the early morning hours of Nov. 15, 2009, the monitor indicated that the baby's heart rate had dropped to a below-normal level. Nurse Christine Winter was the first staff member to arrive at Proffitt's side after the drop in the baby's heart rate. She attempted to adjust Proffitt's position in order to get the baby's heart rate to return to normal. Nurse Lana Jones-Sandy arrived at Proffitt's side a bit later. Ultimately, the baby, plaintiff Lillian M Ciechoski, was delivered by emergency caesarean section. The baby suffered hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, a brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation prior to her delivery. At about one year old, Ciechoski was diagnosed with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy. Ciechoski, through her mother, filed this medical malpractice action against Phoenixville Hospital and related parties.

A jury found the hospital responsible, through the actions of its nurses, for the injuries the plaintiff suffered at birth and awarded her over $32 million. On appeal, the hospital argued that the trial court erred in denying a motion to prevent nurse Cydney Menihan from testifying on behalf of the plaintiff for lack of qualifications under ' 1303.512 of the MCARE Act. Under ' 1303.512, “[n]o person shall be competent to offer an expert medical opinion in a medical professional liability action against a physician unless that person possesses sufficient education, training, knowledge and experience to provide credible, competent testimony and fulfills the additional qualification set forth in this section as applicable.”

The Superior Court agreed with the trial court's observation that there was no authority for the proposition that ' 1303.512 governed expert qualifications for testimony regarding claims of nursing negligence. Rather, subsection (a) specifically limits the application of the rule to those persons offering “an expert medical opinion in a medical profession liability action against a physician.” Menihan did not offer an opinion regarding the care provided by any physician; she testified only as to the standard of care regarding the nursing staff. The court noted that while the Act changed the standards for expert qualifications in offering testimony against a physician, the general standards for expert qualification still apply for nursing testimony.

The record established that Menihan was actively licensed as a nurse in Rhode Island and Florida and that she had been a nurse for 40 years. She worked in various aspects of labor and delivery throughout that time, and taught at Brown University. Moreover, Menihan was the sole awardee of a grant to study sudden infant death and electronic fetal monitoring patterns. After considering the record, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's allowing Menihan to provide expert testimony regarding nursing standard of care. As such, the hospital was not entitled to relief on this expert testimony issue.

'