Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-16-2001

Case Style: Ruth S. Rittenhouse v. Gerald E. Hanks, M.D., et al.

Case Number: Unknown11/24/01

Judge: Del Sole

Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Plaintiff's Attorney: Best Philadelphia Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Barbara S. Magen

Description: 1 Gerald E. Hanks, M.D., and American Oncological Hospital of the Fox
Chase Cancer Center (collectively “Appellants”) appeal the judgment entered
against them in this medical malpractice action. We affirm.


2 Appellee, Ruth S. Rittenhouse, administratrix of the estate of her
husband John Rittenhouse, brought this action alleging the negligence of Dr.
Hanks, John’s attending physician, Dr. Anthony D’Amico, a resident, and
their employer Fox Chase. A nonsuit was entered in favor of Dr. D’Amico.
As to Dr. Hanks, however, the jury found he was negligent and that his negligence was a substantial factor in causing John’s death. The jury
awarded damages in the amount of $2.5 million. Appellee filed a motion for
delay damages in the amount of $864,880 which the court granted.
Appellants’ posttrial motions were denied and judgment was entered.
Appellants’ motion to reduce the amount of security on appeal was also
denied. Appellants’ appeal from that denial was consolidated with the
appeal from the judgment.


3 The genesis of Appellee’s claim is John’s death from liver failure
caused by the side effects of Eulexin, one of the medications which Dr.
Hanks prescribed for the treatment of prostate cancer. Appellee contended
that John showed symptoms of liver damage but Dr. Hanks did not realize
the risk of liver injury from Eulexin and thus did not perform a liver function
study until it was too late to reverse the damage. On appeal, Appellants
claim the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, that the trial court
erred in various evidentiary rulings and jury instructions, that they are
entitled to a modification of the award of delay damages, and that the trial
court erred in denying their motion to reduce the amount of security on
appeal.


4 Appellants’ first evidentiary claim2 is that the trial court erred in
admitting the opinion testimony of Appellee’s expert witness, Dr. Meller, as
he was not qualified to testify on this subject matter. The standard for
qualifying an expert witness is liberal; if the witness has any reasonable
pretension to specialized knowledge on a subject, he may testify and the
weight to be given to the testimony is for the trier of fact. Miller v. Brass
Rail Tavern, 664 A.2d 525 (Pa. 1995). Moreover, the qualification of an
expert witness rests within the sound discretion of the trial judge and,
absent an abuse of that discretion, the decision of the trial judge should be
upheld. Id.


5 Dr. Meller testified that he is a board-certified urologist and his
practice involves the diagnosis and treatment of disorders of the prostate
and genitourinary system. Approximately half of his practice involves the
treatment of prostate disorders, including prostate cancer. Appellants’
contention that Dr. Meller was not qualified because he is not a radiation
oncologist is unavailing since experts in one area of medicine may be found
qualified to address other areas of specialization where the specialties
overlap in practice or where the specialist has had experience in a related
field of medicine. See, e.g., Lira v. Albert Einstein Medical Center, 559
A.2d 550 (Pa. Super. 1989) (neurologist with some training in otolaryngology competent to render expert testimony on conduct of
otolaryngologist). On this record, we conclude that the trial court did not
abuse its discretion in allowing Dr. Meller to testify as an expert.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the
Court's opinion.

Outcome: Plaintiff's verdict for $2.5 million affirmed.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Reported by Kent Morlan



Find a Lawyer

Subject:
City:
State:
 

Find a Case

Subject:
County:
State: