Spain Mexico
Philadelphia, PA Cherry Hill, NJ New York, NY 1-866-LOCKSLAW
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Locks Law Firm
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn
Get Started
  • No win, no fee
  • Free consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ
  • Practice Areas
  • Practice Areas
    • All Practice Areas
    • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
  • Testimonials
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Get Started
  • Spain Mexico   Spanish
  • About
    • About Us
    • The Team
    • Office Locations
    • Newsroom
    • FAQ

    One of the most prominent personal injury law firms in the tri-state region, the Locks Law Firm is steadfastly committed to protecting the rights of seriously injured victims.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Medical Malpractice and Nursing Home Abuse
    • Nursing Home Abuse and Neglect
    • Hospital Acquired Infections
    • Medication Errors
    • Misdiagnosis / Failure to Diagnose
    • Surgical Errors
    • Needle Stick - CRPS

    Medical malpractice is any act by a health care provider that deviates from accepted standards of medical care and results in the personal injury, disability, or wrongful death of a patient. Nursing home abuse or negligence can take many forms. It can include physical, sexual, and emotional abuse, neglect, negligent care, and even financial exploitation.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Environmental and Toxic Torts
    • Asbestos and Mesothelioma
    • Benzene
    • Chemical Exposure
    • Manganese Exposure
    • Natural Resource Damages
    • Toxic Injuries
    • Workplace Exposure
    • Dacthal Herbicide Ban
    • PERC Exposure
    • Paraquat

    Exposure to toxic chemicals in the workplace or environment can cause serious, sometimes fatal health problems, including cancer.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Catastrophic Personal Injuries
    • Premises Liability
    • Burns and Chemical Burns
    • Traumatic Brain Injuries
    • Spinal Cord Injuries
    • Wrongful Death

    Catastrophic personal injuries include brain and spinal cord injuries, severe burns, carbon monoxide poisoning and, most seriously, death.

    Free Case Evaluation
  • Dangerous Drugs & Devices
    • Allergan Breast Implant Recall
    • Hernia Mesh
    • IVC Filters
    • NEC Baby Formula

    At the Locks Law Firm, our pharmaceutical litigation and defective drug lawyers are committed to serving personal injury victims and are well versed in the product liability laws that protect consumers.

    Free Case Evaluation

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

(215) 893-0100

Cherry Hill, NJ

(856) 663-8200

New York, NY

(212) 838-3333

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

The Curtis Center
Suite 720 East
601 Walnut Street

Cherry Hill, NJ

801 North Kings Highway

New York, NY

675 Third Avenue | 8th Floor

Locks Law Firm

Philadelphia, PA

[email protected]

Cherry Hill, NJ

[email protected]

New York, NY

[email protected]

Blog

Evidence of Risk May Be Admissible in Medical Negligence Cases

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court just issued an important decision allowing evidence of risk in medical negligence cases that may alter the way they are tried. Mitchell v. Shikora, __ A.3d __, 2019 WL 2504475, *1 (Pa., June 18, 2019) holds that “evidence of the risks and complications of a surgery may be admissible at trial.” The qualifying words, “may be,” are significant.

Defendant began a laparoscopic hysterectomy by making an incision into the plaintiff’s abdomen. The incision severely cut the colon. The defense expert testified that this incision is undertaken blind; therefore, there is a known increased risk of cutting the bowel; and this injury can occur in the absence of negligence. The trial court allowed this testimony, and on appeal the Supreme Court held it was admissible. The Supreme Court held that this testimony was “relevant and admissible regarding the proper standard of care and whether there was a breach thereof.” Id. at *11.

This decision reinforced the ban on evidence of informed consent in a case raising only negligence and not lack of informed consent. Id. at *7. Though risks of the surgery as set forth in an informed-consent sheet may be admissible on the standard of care, the sheet itself is not admissible. Id. at *7 n.9.

The holding has factual limits. The Court stated that “such evidence may be admissible, subject to traditional concerns of relevancy, reliability, and disqualifying considerations such as undue prejudice.” Id. at *9.

However, a concurring and dissenting opinion by Justice Donohue lamented that “if the Majority is correct that known risk evidence was germane in the case at bar, it is difficult to imagine a circumstance where such evidence would be inadmissible.” 2019 WL 2509340. This opinion conceded that risk evidence could be germane to establishing the standard of care in a two schools of thought case and in cases involving new, experimental or developing surgeries. Id. This opinion also conceded risk evidence might be relevant in the defense of res ipsa loquitur claims. Id.

Another potential relevance of risk evidence for standard of care recognized by Justice Donohue is the locality rule, where the standard differs from one region to another. Id. See Brady v. Urbas, 631 Pa. 329, 340 n.5, 111 A.3d 1155, 1162 n.5 (2015). “This could occur, for example, if the defendant physician worked in a medical office in a remote location that lacked advanced equipment that would ordinarily be present in a large metropolitan area.” Brady, supra (citation omitted).

The plaintiff in Mitchell had argued that studies of known risks and complications on which the defense expert relied may not distinguish between injuries caused by known risks from injuries caused by negligence. 2019 WL 2504475 at *8 n.12. The Court stated that this was a challenge to the weight of the evidence, and could be a ground of cross-examination. Id.

Significantly, the Court stated that this testimony could be challenged under Frye v. United States, 293 F.2d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923). Id. This was emphasized by Justice Wecht, concurring: “Parties should not hesitate to request leave to conduct Frye hearings when appropriate. While a Frye challenge usually relates to the methodology used by the testifying witness, I see no impediment to challenging the studies underlying that testimony upon the basis of Frye.” 2019 WL 2509349. This invites new, lengthy pre-trial Frye hearings challenging the underlying studies.

The trial court here had allowed the risk evidence. The standard on this appeal was whether the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting the evidence. 2019 WL 2504475 at *5. The Supreme Court did not focus on the question of abuse of discretion. A future appeal in which the trial court excluded risk evidence could result in a holding that the trial court had not abused its discretion.

Finally, Justice Wecht criticized defense amici for including a report that placed Philadelphia on a list of “Judicial Hellholes.”

Jonathan W. Miller

Jonathan W. Miller

Partner
Philadelphia Office
Jonathan has specialized in complex cases, legal issues and appeals for over 40 years. Recent cases include medical malpractice and civil rights violations.
June 20, 2019 Jonathan W. Miller

Tell Us About Your Case

If you can read this, please avoid filling the following input field or your submission may be marked as spam.
Thank you for contacting us! We will be in touch with you shortly.
Uh oh. There was a problem processing your request. Please try again!
Previous Entry

CMS Releases New Nursing Home Special Focus Facility List

Next Entry

How Do You Prove Medical Negligence?

Recent Entries

  • Francesca A. Iacovangelo Named 2025 Pennsylvania Super Lawyer
  • IARC’s Latest Evaluation: Automotive Gasoline Causes Cancer
  • How Personal Technology Can Help You Navigate Legal Matters
  • Seeking Justice: Locks Law Firm Represents Victims of Northeast Philadelphia Plane Crash
  • "Judicial Hellhole"

Archive

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • December 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • January 2023
  • August 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • September 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • August 2014
  • June 2014
  • April 2014
  • February 2014
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • February 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • September 2011
  • January 2011
  • November 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
1-866-LOCKSLAW
[email protected]
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn YouTube
2021 Best Lawyers
Martindale-Hubble Award Ten Leaders

Copyright © 2025 Locks Law Firm. Made by Mindlark.

Locks Law Firm only provides legal advice after having entered into an attorney client relationship, which our website specifically does not create. Conversations that originate from website messaging, chat or other two way web based engagement  do not create an attorney client relationship. It is imperative that any action taken be done on the advice of counsel. Because every case is different, the description of awards and cases previously handled do not guarantee a similar outcome in current or future cases. The firm practices law in Pennsylvania, New Jersey & New York as Locks Law Firm. Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America and other organizations that rate attorneys are not designations that have been approved by the State Supreme Courts or the American Bar Association.