Case ID: pa_616/html/0591-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

52 A.3d 223
    Kelly GARMAN and Kent Garman, Petitioners v. Laurice HEINE, M.D., Sohael Raschid, M.D., and the Chambersburg Hospital, Respondents.
    Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
    Sept. 4, 2012.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in interpreting and applying the discovery rule standard set forth in Wilson v. Elr-Daief 600 Pa. 161, 964 A.2d 354 (2009), where it was unknown which of multiple potential causes resulted in injury.
In addressing this issue, the parties are directed to address: (1) the proper interpretation of the requirement of knowledge of the cause of the injury; (2) the proper interpretation of the requirement of knowledge that the injury was caused by another’s conduct; (3) whether the requirement of obtaining a certificate of merit pursuant to Pa.Civ.R.P. 1042.3 should alter the interpretation of the discovery rule where multiple potential causes/multiple potential tortfeasors resulted in injury; and (4) whether the Superior Court properly resolved the factual issues of Petitioners’ notice and diligence as a matter of law, rather than permitting the issues to go to a jury.