Case Name: Maria and Robert BRADY, Jr., Respondents v. William M. URBAS, D.P.M., Petitioner
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 2014-07-16
Citations: 626 Pa. 255
Docket Number: No. 1019 MAL 2013
Parties: Maria and Robert BRADY, Jr., Respondents v. William M. URBAS, D.P.M., Petitioner.
Judges: 
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 626
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
96 A.3d 988
Maria and Robert BRADY, Jr., Respondents v. William M. URBAS, D.P.M., Petitioner.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
July 16, 2014.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:
Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania err in adopting a blanket prohibition on evidence of a surgeon's communication to the plaintiff of potential risks and complications of planned surgery in a medical malpractice case, not involving a separate battery claim for lack of informed consent, and in failing to afford sufficient deference to the trial judge's determination of relevance and denial of a new trial, when the trial judge presented a reasonable explanation for his decision?