Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Kelly Garman and Kent Garman v. Laurice Heine

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE DISTRICT


September 4, 2012

KELLY GARMAN AND KENT GARMAN, PETITIONERS
v.
LAURICE HEINE, M.D., SOHAEL RASCHID, M.D., AND THE CHAMBERSBURG HOSPITAL, RESPONDENTS

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

Per curiam.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 4th day of September, 2012, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED. The issue, rephrased for clarity, is:

Whether the Superior Court erred in interpreting and applying the discovery rule standard set forth in Wilson v. El-Daief, 600 Pa. 161, 964 A.2d 354 (2009), where it was unknown which of multiple potential causes resulted in injury.

In addressing this issue, the parties are directed to address: (1) the proper interpretation of the requirement of knowledge of the cause of the injury;

(2) the proper interpretation of the requirement of knowledge that the injury was caused by another's conduct; (3) whether the requirement of obtaining a certificate of merit pursuant to Pa.Civ.R.P. 1042.3 should alter the interpretation of the discovery rule where multiple potential causes /multiple potential tortfeasors resulted in injury; and (4) whether the Superior Court properly resolved the factual issues of Petitioners' notice and diligence as a matter of law, rather than permitting the issues to go to a jury.

20120904

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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