352 Pa. Super. 195 - Held v. Neft’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

30 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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[T]he statute commences when the medical malpractice plaintiff has knowledge or (and this is crucial to the determination) through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have knowledge of: (1) his injury; (2) the operative cause of his injury; and, (3) the causative relationship between his injury and the operative conduct.” Knowledge of the negligence is not part of the discovery rule.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Francovich v. Byrne · 442 Pa. Super. 69 - Bigansky v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

2. “An exception to this [two year statute of] limitation[s] has been articulated by our courts in medical malpractice cases where very often the patient (and prospective plaintiff) has no reason to believe that he has suffered an injury caused by the administration of a physician’s treatment. The ‘discovery rule’ concept is premised on the concept that where the existence of an injury cannot be reasonably ascertained, the statute of limitations does not begin to run until such time as the injury’s existence is known or discovered, or becomes knowable or discoverable by the exercise of reasonable diligence.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 442 Pa. Super. 69 - Bigansky v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital

3. “the proper course for her would have been to exercise due diligence at [the time she left the defendant's care] and seek further professional advice to ascertain the true cause of her injury.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Bohus v. Beloff