Court Opinion

ID: 9694560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 17:46:46.628382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:03.367928
License: Public Domain

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I join in the opinion, I vehemently disagree with the majority that the existence of two schools of medical thought may ever be a question of fact to be submitted to a jury. The *42majority states that, “It then becomes a question for the jury to determine whether they believe that there are two legitimate schools of thought such that the defendant should be insulated from liability.” (Majority opinion at 41). It is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine in the first instance whether there are two schools of medical thought so that competent medical authority as to a course of treatment is divided. It is a question of law for the trial judge. It is not a question of fact. In all other respects, I agree with the majority’s analysis of the two schools of medical thought doctrine.