.

The Quarterly Dose

LEGAL ROUNDUP – Pennsylvania

The Quarterly Dose – March 2025

March 1, 2025

Pennsylvania Court Affirms that Experts and Treating Physicians Must Be in Same Specialty
Kunkel v. Abington Memorial Hospital, 2024 PA Super 298 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 13, 2024)

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania reiterated, retained experts opining on the standard of care must be experts in the same practice area as the named defendants. Additionally, the court agreed that only one expert can testify on causation and that allowing multiple would be cumulative if their reports are duplicative in addressing the defendant’s alleged failures when treating the patient. 

Lastly, the court affirmed that the patient’s treating physicians’ testimony was properly excluded. While the opinions the physicians reach when treating patients are not expert testimony, because they are not prepared in anticipation of litigation, the physicians in this case only formed their opinion in preparation of litigation and, therefore, could not testify because the plaintiff did not identify them as experts prior to trial. 

As such, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania found the trial court properly ruled to exclude the plaintiff’s proposed expert testimony.

 


Standard to Meet Gross Negligence and What Protections Are Afforded Pursuant to Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act Outlined by Pennsylvania Court
Toth v. Chambersburg Hospital, 2024 Pa. Super. Ct. 236, 325 A.3d 870, 873 (2024)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed summary judgment and found that the treatment given to a patient in a mental health facility did not rise to the level of gross negligence needed to overcome the immunity provided by the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act. 

The patient—diagnosed with dementia and addressed as a high-fall risk—attempted to run, fell, sustained a hip fracture and later passed away. The hospital sought summary judgment, asserting immunity under the Pennsylvania Mental Health Procedures Act (MHPA), which protects facilities, physicians, and other authorized people in the absence of willful misconduct or gross negligence for certain decisions related to treatment. 

The trial court granted the motion, concluding the hospital’s actions did not constitute gross negligence or willful misconduct. 

The Superior Court affirmed this decision, agreeing that the hospital’s conduct did not rise to the level of gross negligence required to overcome statutory immunity.

 


Pennsylvania Court Reaffirms that Medical Malpractice Claims Require Clear Evidence of Direct Link Between Health Care Provider’s Actions and Harm Suffered
L. Rongione and R. Rongione v. Abington Memorial Hospital, No. 2902 EDA 2023, 2024 Wl 5002521 (Pa. Super. Ct. Dec. 6, 2024)

The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding they were able to make a causal connection between the health care provider’s actions and the harm suffered, stating the plaintiff adequately demonstrated medical negligence. 

The court reiterated that a plaintiff alleging medical negligence must provide an expert witness who can opine, with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, on an identified standard of care, a deviation from that care, and the breach was a proximate cause of the harm suffered. 

Additionally, the court affirmed the trial court’s refusal to submit comparative negligence to the jury because the defendant was unable to show that any comparative negligence was not the cause of the alleged harm. Because the defendant was unable to testify with a reasonable degree of medical certainty, the court did not find that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate comparative negligence. 


 

The Quarterly Dose – March 2025, has been prepared for our readers by Marshall Dennehey. It is solely intended to provide information on recent legal developments and is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. We welcome the opportunity to provide such legal assistance as you require on this and other subjects. If you receive the alerts in error, please send a note to tamontemuro@mdwcg.com. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2025 Marshall Dennehey. All Rights Reserved.

Firm Highlights

Thought Leadership

Appellate Division Affirms Dismissal of Legal Malpractice Counterclaim Against Martin Law Firm

In Martin v. Loury, 2026 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1617 (App. Div. July 15, 2026), Martin Law Firm represented Kirk Loury in an employment matter Mr. Loury filed against his former employer, Concord Equity Group Advisors LLC (“Concord”). The allegations included, among other things, that Loury was not fairly compensated for his employment with Concord. After a bench trial finding in Loury’s favor, the Appellate Division remanded this matter in February 2016 for a second trial. During the second trial, Concord CEO, Lee Argush, testified to lower compensation estimate than first trial. On remand, the second trial judge awarded Mr. Loury the same damages as the first judge, finding Mr. Argush not credible. After the findings during the second trial, Martin Law Firm filed an action against Mr. Loury to recover legal fees and costs of representing Mr. Loury in a second bench trial and Mr. Loury filed a counterclaim against Martin Law Firm for legal malpractice, alleging he should have received an even higher award in the second bench trial. In this allegation, Mr. Loury, through his expert, claimed that Martin Law Firm should have recalled Mr. Loury to the stand to rebut Mr. Argush’s testimony to allege an alternative theory of damages. Mr. Loury’s expert admitted that the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's theory and accepted Loury's damages theory. The trial court barred Mr. Loury’s expert and dismissed Loury's counterclaim with prejudice before convening the collection trial, and the jury ruled in Martin Law Firm’s favor. Mr. Loury appealed the trial court's pretrial rulings barring his liability expert from testifying in support of his legal malpractice counterclaim, denying his motion for summary judgment on that counterclaim, and denying his motion to amend his counterclaim by adding attorney Joseph A. Martin as a codefendant. In affirming the trial court’s decision, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly excluded Loury’s expert testimony in the counterclaim against Martin Law Firm because the expert could not explain how calling Loury as a rebuttal witness would have increased damages when the second judge already rejected Mr. Argush's testimony and accepted Loury's damages theory, making the expert’s causation opinion speculative. The Appellate Division also held that the trial court properly denied Mr. Loury's summary judgment motion on his malpractice counterclaim because reasonable minds could differ on whether Mr. Martin's alleged failures would have changed the second judge's damages award, given the judge already found Mr. Argush not credible, creating genuine factual disputes precluding summary judgment. Also, the Appellate Division held that the trial court properly denied Loury's May 2023 motion to add Joseph Martin individually because the statute of limitations expired in February 2022, six years after the 2016 appellate remand when Mr. Loury incurred new legal costs, and relation back did not apply because Mr. Loury knew Mr. Martin's identity throughout and strategically chose to sue only Martin Law Firm in his 2019 counterclaim.