2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 6-16-2005 

# M aresc a v . M anc all P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3103

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " M ar e s ca v . M ancall " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1003. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/1003NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 3103

_____________ J OSE P H M ARES CA

v. * E L L IO T L . M A N C A L L , M .D .; T HOMAS J E F F E RS ON UNI VE RS I T Y HOS P I T AL

J os eph S. M ar es ca, A ppel l ant * ( A m ended Perthe C l erk’ s O r derof 8/ 19/ 04)

_______________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt F o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 01- cv- 05355) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le L e g ro m e D . D a v is

_______________________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

J une 8, 2005 B efore: R E N D E L L , F U E N T E S and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed J une 16, 2005)

_______________________

OP I NI ON

_______________________2

P E R C UR I AM Joseph M ares ca app eal s fr om the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order grant i ng j ud gm ent as a m att erof l aw i n favorof the D efe ndant s i n thi s act i on al l egi ng m edi cal m al pr act i ce. For the f o ll o w ing rea so n s, w e w il l aff irm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s ord er. O n D ece m ber5, 1996, J os eph M ar es ca c ons ul t ed D r . E l l i otL . M anca l l , a l i cens ed n e u ro lo g ist in P h ilad e lp h ia. D r. M a n c a ll ex a m in e d M a re sc a , d iag n o se d h im w ith c h ro n ic h ea d ac h es, an d p resc ri b ed a m u scle relax an t. In S ep tem b er 1 9 9 9 , n ea rl ythree y ea rs l ater, a rheumat ol ogi s tdi agnos ed M ar es ca w i th anky l os i ng s pondy l i t i s ( A S) , forw hi ch he c o n tin u e s to re c e iv e tre a tm e n t. M a re sc a f

iled a p ro se c o m p lain t in th e C o u rt o f C o m m o n P lea s o f

P h ilad e lp h ia C ountyagai ns tD r . M anca l l and Thom as J eff er s on U ni ver s i tyH os pi t al al l egi ng m edi cal m a lp ra c tic e b a s e d o n th e f a ilu re to d ia g n o s e A S o r f o llo w -u p a f

te r t h e o f f ic e v is it in 1 9 9 6 . T he D efe ndant s r emoved t he ca s e t o the D i s tr i ctC our tand, fol l ow i ng di s covery , m oved fo r sum m aryjud g m en t. T h e D istri ct C o u rtd en ied th e D ef en d an ts’ m o ti o n s fo r sum m ary j u d g m e n t , a n d th e m a t t e rw a s c a l e n d a r e d f o rtr i a l b y j u ry. In p re p a ra tio n f

o r tria l, th e p a rties v id e o tap e d th e tes tim o n yo f M a re sc a ’s s o le m edi cal expert , D r . M i t chel l S. Fel der . A tthe cl os e of M ar es ca’ s cas e- i n- chi ef, the D efe ndant s r enew ed thei rpr evi ous l y - fi l ed mot i ons forj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw under Fed. R . C i v. P. 50. T he D efe ndant s ar gued thatD r . Fel derfai l ed t o offe rexpertt es t i m ony fr om w hi ch the j urycoul d concl ude thatthe D efe ndant s br eac hed a s t andar d of ca r e orT h e D istric t C o u rt’s ju risd ictio n w a s b a se d o n 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 3 2 . W e h a v e a p p e llate 1 j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1291. W e exe r ci s e pl enaryr evi ew overthe D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s deci s i on t o gr antj udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . See LaV er dur e v. C ountyof M ont gom ery , 324 F. 3d 123, 125 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . “A courts houl d gr ants uch a mot i on o n ly‘if , v iew in g th e e v id e n c e in th e lig h t m o st f a v o ra b le to th e n o n m o v a n t an d g iv in g it the adva nt age of

everyfai rand r eas onabl e i nfer ence , ther e i s i ns uffi ci entevi dence fr om w h ich a juryrea so n ab lyco u ld f ind li ab il ity . ’” N o rth v iew M o tors, Inc . v . C h ry sler M o tors C o rp ., 2 2 7 F .3 d 7 8 , 8 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( q u o tin g L ig h tn in g L u b e , In c . v . W itc o C o rp ., 4 F . 3 d 1 1 5 3 , 1 1 6 6 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 3 )). 3 ca u sed an yinjuryto M are sca . A fter co n d u cti n g a len g thyh ea ri n g , the D istri ct C o u rt agr eed w i th the D efe ndant s and ent er ed j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw i n thei rfavor . T he D i s tr i ctC our ts ubs equent l ydeni ed M ar es ca’ s t i m el ym ot i on forr econs i der at i on. M ar es ca app eal s. 1 In Pen nsy l van i a, a plai nti ff seeking d am ages fo r m edical m al pract i ce m ust “es t abl i s h a dutyow ed bythe phy s i ci an t o the pat i ent , a br eac h of thatdutybythe phy s i ci an, thatthe br eac h w as the pr oxi m at e ca us e of the harm s uffe r ed, and the damages s uffe r ed w er e a di r ectr es ul tof the harm . ” Toogood v. R ogal , 824 A . 2d 1140, 1145 ( Pa. 20 03 ). T o est abli sh a breach an d cau sat i on , a plai nti ff m ustpresentan “ex pertw i tness w h o w ill tes tify , to a re a so n a b le d e g re e o f m e d ica l ce rta in ty ” o f

th e b re a c h a n d p ro x im a te ca u se. M it ze lfeltv . K am ri n , 5 8 4 A . 2 d 8 8 8 , 8 9 2 (P a. 19 9 0 ). W e h a v e re v iew e d th e tes tim o n yo f M a re sc a ’s s o le m e d ica l ex p e rt in its e n tirety a n d a g re e w ith th e D is tr ic t C o u rt th a t h is te s tim o n yd o e s n o t s a tis f yth e s e re q u ir e m e n ts . D r. F elde r did n o t art iculate a n o p inion to an yd eg ree o f m ed ical certaintythat eith er D r. M a n c a ll o r th e H o sp ital b re a c h e d a n yre q u isite s tan d a rd o f c a re o r c a u se d h a rm toT he D i stri ctC ou rtj ud gm ent w hich w e affirm reads as fol l ow s: 2 “A N D N O W , thi s 7 dayof M ay , 2004, i ti s her ebyO R D E R E D thatthe th M ot i on forJ udgm entas a M att erof Law fi l ed byT hom as J eff er s on U ni ver s i tyH os pi t al ( “TJU H ”) ( D oc. N o. 79) and the M ot i on forJ udgm ent as a M att er o f L aw fil ed b yD ef en d an t E ll iot L . M an ca ll , M . D . (“D r. M anca l l ”) ( D oc. N o. 80) ar e G R A N T E D w i th pr ej udi ce P u rsu a n t to th e p ro v isio n s o f R u le 4 1 .1 (b ) o f

th e L o c a l R u les o f

C iv il P ro c e d u re , itis f

u rth e r O R D E R E D th a t th is m a tter b e D IS M IS S E D w ith p re ju d ic e . T h e C le rk o f

C o u rtis d ir e c te d to s ta tis tic a lly c lo s e th is m a tte r.” T h e g ran t of

su m m aryjud g m en t and the d ism issal of the c o m p lai n t are inco n sist en t. C h em ino r D rug s L td. V . E thy l C o rp., 1 6 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 , 1 2 1 n . 2 (3d C ir . 1999) . I n anyevent , L ocal R ul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e of the East ern D i s tr i ct41. 1( b) 4 M ar es ca. I n the abs ence of s uch t es t i m ony , the D i s tr i ctC our tw as bound t o gr ant jud g m en t as a m att er o f law in the D ef en d an ts’ fa v o r.

W e ar e aw ar e of M ar es ca’ s cont i nued att empt s t o r el yon D r . Fel der ’ s r eportdat ed N ovember22, 2002. W e ar e al s o aw ar e thatthe D i s tr i ctC our tr epea t edl yi nform ed M ar es ca thatD r . Fel der ’ s r eport , w hi l e s uffi ci entt o defe atthe D efe ndant s ’ m ot i ons for s um m aryj udgm ent , w as neveradmi t t ed i nt o the tr i al r ecor d and thus coul d notbe co n side red b ythe ju ry . A t bo tt o m , reg ard less o f w h at his rep o rtstat es, D r. F elde r’s tes tim o n yd id n o t p ro v id e su f f icie n t ev id e n c e f

ro m w h ich th e ju ryc o u ld h a v e f o u n d in M a r e s c a ’ s f

a v o ro n two e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f h i s c l a i m. F or these reasons, w e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s order grant i ng j ud gm ent as a m a tter o f law in f a v o r o f th e D e f e n d a n ts. W e d e n yth e m o tio n b yC h a rle s D e n g to

2pert ai ns t o set t l em ent r at her than adjudi cat ed cases.

5 pr ocee d as ami cus cur i ae. See Fed. R . A pp. P. 29( b) ; N eonat ol ogyA s s ocs . , P. A . v. C o m m ’r of

Intern al R ev en u e, 29 3 F . 3 d 1 2 8 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ).