[DOWNLOAD] "Dietzel v. Gurman" by In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Dietzel v. Gurman
- Author : In the Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- Release Date : January 10, 2002
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 60 KB
Description
1 In this appeal, we are asked to decide whether the trial court erred when it refused to remove a compulsory non-suit entered at the close of appellant Shirley Dietzel's (""patient's"") case-in-chief. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. The factual and procedural history of the case follows. 2 On January 28, 1997, appellee Andrew Gurman, M.D. (""physician"") performed hip replacement surgery on patient during which she suffered an injury to her sciatic nerve. Physician conceded that the injury occurred during the surgery, and also acknowledged that he did not ""visualize"" the sciatic nerve prior to performing the hip reconstruction.1 (Notes of testimony, 11/13/01 at 57-58, 60.) Nevertheless, he testified that patient's injury was an inexplicable complication that occasionally arises during hip replacement surgery. (Id. at 58-60.) 3 In contrast, patient's expert, Philip Perkins, M.D. who was called as an expert in orthopedic surgery, testified to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that physician fell below the standard of care for total hip reconstruction using the ""posterior approach,"" as physician did, when he failed adequately to visualize the sciatic nerve and to keep it in view during the surgery. (Notes of testimony, 11/14/01 at 14-17.)2 Dr. Perkins also testified that patient suffered ""very severe damage indeed to both divisions of the sciatic nerve."" (Id. at 18.) Additionally, Dr. Perkins opined to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that the cause of the significant injury to patient's sciatic nerve was physician's failure to visualize the sciatic nerve in order to protect it during the surgery, thereby dividing the nerve.