Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JOSEPH MCSLOY AND PATRICIA A. MCSLOY v. JEANES HOSPITAL (08/22/88)

filed: August 22, 1988.

JOSEPH MCSLOY AND PATRICIA A. MCSLOY, APPELLANTS,
v.
JEANES HOSPITAL, DR. MICHAEL LEWITT, STEWART MILLER AND DR. VENERANDAO JAURIGUE, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Civil Division at No. 2347 September Term, 1983.

COUNSEL

Francis X. Nolan, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Barbara A. Magen, Philadelphia, for Jeanes Hospital, appellees.

Felice M. Quigley, Philadelphia, for Jaurigue, appellee.

Montemuro, Popovich and Melinson, JJ.

Author: Montemuro

[ 376 Pa. Super. Page 596]

Appellants, Joseph and Patricia McSloy, appeal from the dismissal of their medical malpractice action and entry of non pros for their failure to identify expert witnesses and

[ 376 Pa. Super. Page 597]

    answer expert witness interrogatories as directed by the trial court. We affirm.

The facts leading up to the dismissal of appellants' cause of action are thoroughly set forth in Opinion of the Honorable Bernard J. Avellino as follows:

On November 2, 1981, Joseph McSloy burned his ankle in an industrial accident and was taken to Jeanes Hospital where he received outpatient care. He was unhappy with his care and, on November 11th, he went to a different hospital where skin graft surgery was performed.

Almost two years later, in September of 1983, he filed this lawsuit charging that certain physicians at Jeanes Hospital were negligent in diagnosing and treating his burns. He claimed that this negligence caused his wound to become infected and require surgery. The surgery, meanwhile, has left him with a permanent scar.

The defendants independently served expert witness interrogatories upon the plaintiff on May 29th and July 12, 1985. Plaintiff did not respond and then ignored a motion to compel answers, which was later filed. As a consequence, Judge Hill entered a routine order directing plaintiff to answer the interrogatories within thirty days or risk sanctions. This order was entered on February 28, 1986.

Plaintiff ignored this order and, on April 7th, the defendants filed a motion for sanctions. Plaintiff responded to this motion, in part, by providing a candid, but useless, answer to the expert interrogatories. The answer he provided is one that is authorized by law, and is commonly referred to as a " Royster response."*fn1 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.