Shinal, M. and Shinal, R., Pets. v. Toms, S.

133 A.3d 734, 635 Pa. 201, 2016 Pa. LEXIS 695, 2016 WL 1162339

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: March 23, 2016
• Docket: 897 MAL 2015 (Granted)
• Status: Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 23rd day of March 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, limited to the following issues raised by Petitioners, reproduced here verbatim:

1. Is the plaintiff in a civil trial entitled to a for cause strike of prospective jurors with close familial, situational or financial relationships with the defendant’s employer, whether direct or indirect, when the claimed negligence of the defendant occurred in the course and scope of the defendant’s employment?

2. Can a panel of the Superior Court create new law and require counsel in a civil trial to motion the court to allow an additional peremptory challenge each time a for cause challenge of a potential juror is denied and/or object continuously after the initial motion to strike the potential juror for cause is denied in order to preserve the issue for appeal?

3. May a court in a medical malpractice trial alleging lack of informed consent by the surgeon ignore Pennsylvania common law and the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, 40 P.S. §§ 1303.101 et seq., and charge the jury that information received from the non-physician “qualified staff’ at the hospital can be considered in deciding whether the surgeon obtained the informed consent of the patient for surgery.

The Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED with respect to Petitioner’s fourth stated issue.