A Pennsylvania Superior Court three-judge panel has slashed $1.2 million from a $2.7 million jury award in a medical malpractice case alleging two cancer misdiagnoses, finding that one of the claims was not brought until after the statute of limitations had passed.
The medical malpractice case was brought against a doctor and medical practice by the estate of a man who died in 2018. The deceased had been diagnosed with stage 4 prostate cancer on September 27, 2017 and with liver cancer on July 5, 2018.
On March 2, 2022, the trial court entered judgment against the defendant medical professionals and for the estate. The jury completed a form outlining the liability, causation, and damages for each claim. The jury specified compensatory damages in the amount of $1,500,000 for the prostate cancer claim and $1,200,000 for the liver cancer claim.
The defendants appealed and asked for a new trial, asserting that the liver cancer cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations
The estate’s original and an amended complaint focused primarily on alleged negligence over the prostate cancer treatment. Only later during trial in July 2021 did the plaintiffs question the doctor’s treatment of the decedent’s liver during the period of 2010 to 2014, years leading up to his liver cancer diagnosis.
The medical professionals contended that this allegation amounted to a new cause of action, and they were not given notice of any claim pertaining to liver treatment for which different treatments, evidence, defenses and liability would apply.
The medical team also pointed out on appeal that the two-year statute of limitations for injuries and death suffered by the decedent due to medical negligence expired, at the latest, on July 31, 2020, or two years after his death. They argued that the plaintiffs did not raise any theory of liability regarding the decedent’s liver until nearly one year after the statute of limitations expired, when on July 6, 2021 they submitted an expert report.
The appeals panel agreed that the liver cancer claim was time-barred but denied the defendants a new trial. Instead, the court refashioned the award to reflect the jury’s outline without the liver cancer claim, thereby obviating the need for a new trial on the prostate cancer cause of action. The court vacated the portion of the jury’s verdict relating to liability and $1.2 million damages on the liver cancer cause of action, while affirming the liability and $1.5 million in damages relating to the prostate cancer cause of action.
Was this article valuable?
Here are more articles you may enjoy.
Trump’s Bond Insurer Tells Judge Shortfall Is ‘Inconceivable’ 
California Sees Two More Property Insurers Withdraw From Market 
FBI Says Chinese Hackers Preparing to Attack US Infrastructure 
Why New York’s Attorney General Objects to Trump’s Bond Insurer 
