Lageman, E. v. Zepp, J., IV, D.O.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Lageman, E. v. Zepp, J., IV, D.O.

DecidedMarch 31, 2021

Docket578 MAL 2020 (Granted)

StatusPublished

This text of Lageman, E. v. Zepp, J., IV, D.O. (Lageman, E. v. Zepp, J., IV, D.O.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lageman, E. v. Zepp, J., IV, D.O., (Pa. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

M.D. Appeal Dkt. 21 - 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

ELIZABETH H. LAGEMAN, BY AND : No. 578 MAL 2020 THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY : AND DAUGHTER, ADRIENNE LAGEMAN, : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal Respondents : from the Order of the Superior Court : : v. : : : JOHN ZEPP, IV, D.O.; ANESTHESIA : ASSOCIATES OF YORK, PA, INC.; YORK : HOSPITAL; AND WELLSPAN HEALTH, : T/D/B/A YORK HOSPITAL, : : Petitioners :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the

remaining issue. The issue, as stated by Petitioners, is:

Did the Superior Court’s majority opinion conflict with this Court’s holdings in Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc., 907 A.2d 1061 (Pa. 2006), and Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003) (plurality), and the Superior Court’s en banc opinion in MacNutt v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 932 A.2d 980 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc), when the Superior Court found an abuse of discretion and reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur where the underlying case was medically complex and the plaintiff had otherwise established a prima facie case of medical professional negligence by direct expert testimony offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

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

M.D. Appeal Dkt. 21 - 2021

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT

ELIZABETH H. LAGEMAN, BY AND : No. 578 MAL 2020 THROUGH HER POWER OF ATTORNEY : AND DAUGHTER, ADRIENNE LAGEMAN, : : Petition for Allowance of Appeal Respondents : from the Order of the Superior Court : : v. : : : JOHN ZEPP, IV, D.O.; ANESTHESIA : ASSOCIATES OF YORK, PA, INC.; YORK : HOSPITAL; AND WELLSPAN HEALTH, : T/D/B/A YORK HOSPITAL, : : Petitioners :

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 31st day of March, 2021, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the

remaining issue. The issue, as stated by Petitioners, is:

Did the Superior Court’s majority opinion conflict with this Court’s holdings in Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc., 907 A.2d 1061 (Pa. 2006), and Toogood v. Rogal, 824 A.2d 1140 (Pa. 2003) (plurality), and the Superior Court’s en banc opinion in MacNutt v. Temple Univ. Hosp., 932 A.2d 980 (Pa. Super. 2007) (en banc), when the Superior Court found an abuse of discretion and reversible error in the trial court’s refusal to give a jury instruction on res ipsa loquitur where the underlying case was medically complex and the plaintiff had otherwise established a prima facie case of medical professional negligence by direct expert testimony offered to a reasonable degree of medical certainty?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lageman, E. v. Zepp, J., IV, D.O., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lageman-e-v-zepp-j-iv-do-pa-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack