Title: Estate of Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, et al. (Concurring And Dissenting Opinion)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 10-11EAP2001
State: Pennsylvania
Issuer: Pennsylvania Supreme Court
Date: August 29, 2002

[J-121-2001] IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN DISTRICT ESMELINDA VALLES, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF LOPE VALLES, DECEASED; RUBEN VALLES, : Appellant v. ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER; LEONARD H. COHEN, M.D.; ARCHIMEDE J. SILVESTRI, M.D.; PAUL H. STEERMAN, M.D.; A. SILVESTRI ASSOCIATES; JAY MORROS, M.D.; MARK KRAMER, M.D.; AND ALAN WLADIS, M.D., Appellees : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : Nos. 10 & 11 EAP 2001 Appeal from the Judgment of Superior Court dated 8/24/00 at 2325 PHL 1998, which affirmed the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division, at 1211 Nov. Term 1994, dated 6/29/98 ARGUED: October 16, 2001 CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION MR. JUSTICE SAYLOR DECIDED: August 28, 2002 With regard to the issue of informed consent as it pertains to Dr. Morros' attempted placement of the Permacath, I join the majority opinion, as I agree that the doctrine of informed consent, at least under the presently prevailing interpretation of the pertinent statute, see generally Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal, ___ Pa. ___, 798 A.2d 742 (2002), does not encompass a choice among alternative sites for performing a surgical procedure such as the insertion of a Permacath.1 As to whether a hospital may be held vicariously liable for an employee-physician's failure to obtain a patient's informed consent, I respectfully dissent from the majority's holding that it cannot, and, as to this issue, join Mr. Justice Nigro's dissenting opinion to the contrary. 1 As I noted in Montgomery, at least the argument can be made that the General Assembly's recent amendments to the statute incorporate negligence concepts. See id. at ___, 798 A.2d at 753 (Saylor, J., concurring). [J-121-2001] - 2