2005 Pa. Super. 45 - Grossman v. Barke’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

45 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) -a duty owed by the physician to the patient (2) a breach of duty from the physician to the patient (3) that the breach of. duty was the proximate cause of, or a substantial factor in, bringing about the harm suffered by the patient, and (4) damages suffered by the patient that were a direct result of that harm.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tong-Summerford, A. v. Abington Mem. Hosp. · 2005 Pa. Super. 240 - Yee v. Roberts

2. “Summary judgment properly is granted after the close of the relevant pleadings ‘whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be established by additional discovery or expert report’ and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Pa.R.C.P. 1035.2(1). The standard of our review of an order granting or denying a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 1035.2 is well established. In reviewing an order granting summary judgment, an appellate court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. We will reverse only if there has been an error of law or a clear abuse of discretion. Morningstar v. Hallett, 2004 PA Super 337, 6 , 858 A.2d 125 (filed August 27, 2004) (case citations omitted). Our scope of review is plenary with regard to questions of law. Borden, Inc. v. Advent Ink Co., 701 A.2d 255, 258 (Pa.Super.1997)[, appeal denied, 555 Pa. 725 , 725 A.2d 178 (1998) ]. However, we are not bound by the trial court’s conclusions of law and, instead, we may reach our own inferences and conclusions. Id.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2009 Pa. Super. 4 - Toth v. Donegal Companies · 2006 Pa. Super. 306 - George v. Ellis

3. “A medical malpractice claim is distinguished by two defining characteristics. First, medical malpractice can occur only “ ‘within the course of a professional relationship.’ ” Second, claims of medical malpractice necessarily “raise questions involving medical judgment.” Claims of ordinary negligence, by contrast, “raise issues that are within the common knowledge and experience of the [fact-finder].” Therefore, a court must ask two fundamental questions in determining whether a claim sounds in ordinary negligence or medical malpractice: (1) whether the claim pertains to an action that occurred within the course of a professional relationship; and (2) whether the claim raises questions of medical judgment beyond the realm of common knowledge and experience. If both these questions are answered in the affirmative, the action is subject to the procedural and substantive requirements that govern medical malpractice actions.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2007 Pa. Super. 274 - Merlini Ex Rel. Merlini v. Gallitzin Water Authority · 2007 Pa. Super. 5 - Ditch v. Waynesboro Hospital