Court Opinion

ID: 9541351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:24:37.793166+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:46.520964
License: Public Domain

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
Existing case law of this Court requires the reversal of the order of the Superior Court and the reinstatement of the trial court’s judgment. Because plaintiff has produced expert testimony tending to show that the injury sustained here does not usually occur without negligence, the majority’s discussion of the need generally for expert testimony in medical malpractice cases is unnecessary. Here, the sole *481dispute is whether plaintiff sufficiently eliminated the existence of “other responsible causes” as required by Restatement (Second) of Torts § 328D(l)(b) (1965) and Gilbert v. Korvette’s, Inc., 457 Pa. 602, 327 A.2d 94 (1974). Plaintiff’s evidence permits the conclusion that Dr. Beittel actively participated throughout the entire operation, including the period when Dr. Rohrabaugh performed the laparoscopy. Thus, this is not a case where there “is no doubt” that the negligence of Dr. Rohrabaugh was equally probable. See Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, at Comment f. Rather, it is a case where the jury reasonably could conclude that Dr. Beittel was at all times the “responsible cause” of the injury.
WILKINSON, J., joins in this concurring opinion.