Gbur v. Golio

947 A.2d 1239, 596 Pa. 619, 2008 Pa. LEXIS 510
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided April 22, 2008·No. Appeal No. 423 WAL 2007·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 22nd day of April, 2008, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED to the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to all remaining issues. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the MCARE Act foreclosed a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action against a urologist from offering expert [620]*620testimony from a radiation oncologist to develop the applicable standard of care for the treatment of a cancer patient, upon the urologist’s review of a bone density study indicating “multiple foci of abnormal activity involving the right and left sides of the pelvis, the lower thoracic spine, right ribs, right mandible ... consistent with osseous metastatic disease.”
Justice McCAFFERY did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gbur v. Golio, 947 A.2d 1239, 596 Pa. 619, 2008 Pa. LEXIS 510 (Pa. 2008).

947 A.2d 1239 (Gbur v. Golio) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gbur v. Golio
963 A.2d 443 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2009)