Passarello v. Grumbine

44 A.3d 654, 615 Pa. 585, 2012 WL 1860990, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1201
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania·Decided May 23, 2012·No. 645 WAL 2011·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of May, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issues are:

(1) Is it ever within the discretion of a trial judge to instruct the jury in a medical malpractice case that a doctor is not liable for a nonnegligent error of judgment?

(2) Was the Supreme Court’s retroactive application to the present case of the rule it announced in Pringle v. Rapaport[,] 980 A.2d 159 (Pa.Super.2009) (en banc), contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in Cleveland v. Johns-Manville Corp.[,] 547 Pa. 402, 690 A.2d 1146 (1997)?

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

Passarello v. Grumbine, 44 A.3d 654, 615 Pa. 585, 2012 WL 1860990, 2012 Pa. LEXIS 1201 (Pa. 2012).

44 A.3d 654 (Passarello v. Grumbine) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Passarello v. Grumbine
87 A.3d 285 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 2014)