Maria v. Ureas

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Maria v. Ureas

96 A.3d 988

DecidedJuly 16, 2014

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.3d 988 (Maria v. Ureas) 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

Maria v. Ureas, 96 A.3d 988 (Pa. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania err in adopting a blanket prohibition on evidence of a surgeon’s communication to the plaintiff of potential risks and complications of planned surgery in a medical malpractice case, not involving a separate battery claim for lack of informed consent, and in failing to afford sufficient deference to the trial judge’s determination of relevance and denial of a new trial, when the trial judge presented a reasonable explanation for his decision?

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 16th day of July, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issue set forth below. The issue, as stated by Petitioner, is:

Did the Superior Court of Pennsylvania err in adopting a blanket prohibition on evidence of a surgeon’s communication to the plaintiff of potential risks and complications of planned surgery in a medical malpractice case, not involving a separate battery claim for lack of informed consent, and in failing to afford sufficient deference to the trial judge’s determination of relevance and denial of a new trial, when the trial judge presented a reasonable explanation for his decision?

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.3d 988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maria-v-ureas-pa-2014.