2000 Pa. Super. 297 - Clementi v. Procacci’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““The medical professional is legally responsible or liable for the injuries suffered by his or her patient if the defendant’s negligent conduct is a legal cause of those injuries. “In order for the negligent conduct to be a legal cause, that conduct must have been a substantial factor in bringing about the injuries in question. “If the injuries in question would have been sustained even if the medical professional had not been negligent, then the negligent conduct of the medical professional would not be a substantial factor in causing the injuries in question. “Stated differently, the negligent conduct of a medical professional is a substantial factor in causing the patient’s injuries if those injuries would not have been sustained had the medical professional not acted in a negligent manner. “When a medical professional negligently fails to act, or negligently delays in employing indicated diagnostic or therapeutic measures, and his or her negligence is a substantial contributing factor in causing injuries to the patient, the plaintiff patient does not have to prové to a certainty that proper care would have, as a medical fact, prevented the injuries in question. “If a medical professional’s negligent action or inaction has effectively terminated the patient’s chances of avoiding injuries, the medical professional may not raise conjectures as to the measure of the chances that he or she has put beyond the possibility of realization. If there was any substantial possibility ”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cruz v. Northeastern Hospital

2. “It is well settled that “[a]n inadequate jury instruction may amount to reversible error if it has a tendency to mislead the jury or if it omits material, which is basic and fundamental.” McClintock v. Works, 716 A.2d 1262, 1264 (Pa.Super.1998) (citation omitted). Although a trial court need not use the specific language requested by a party, its words must sufficiently and fully convey the rules of law applicable to the case. See Gravlin v. Fredavid Builders & Developers, 450 Pa.Super. 655 , 677 A.2d 1235 (1996).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2002 Pa. Super. 232 - MacHado v. Kunkel