recognizing that Superior Court, as error-correcting court, may not purport to reverse an order where only basis for finding error is claim responsible party never gave trial court opportunity to consider
How later courts described this case
- recognizing that Superior Court, as error-correcting court, may not purport to reverse an order where only basis for finding error is claim responsible party never gave trial court opportunity to consider
- recognizing that while we are not bound by the decisions of other jurisdictions, we may "use them for guidance to the degree we find them useful and not incompatible with Pennsylvania law”
- affirming admission of medical testimony as to causation where expert reviewed patient’s medical records and medical literature and extrapolated from the documented adverse effects of Doxepin in recommended doses, which effects were derived from clinical trials and clinical experience with Doxepin at therapeutic levels, to conclude that patient’s injuries resulted from a massive overdose of Doxepin
- recognizing that we are not bound by federal cases but may use them for guidance to the degree we find them useful and not incompatible with Pennsylvania law
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Vinitski v. Adler, 69 Pa. D. & C.4th 78 (2004)
The facts in Track are distinguishable from the facts of this case.
The opinion
DEL SOLE, P.J.,
concurring.
¶ 1 I join the opinion of my colleague, Judge Ford Elliott but write separately to address a point raised in the dissenting opinion of Judge Klein.
¶ 2 I do not view the majority opinion as “takfing] the position that by failing to challenge Dr. Shane’s claim that the literature supported his theories during trial, the defense has conceded that the literature does in fact exist and supports Dr. Shane’s opinion.” Slip Op. at 1106 (Klein, J. dissenting). Rather, once Dr. Shane testified that the literature supported his opinion, he could have been cross-examined regarding the literature. While the defense may have made a tactical decision to forgo that cross-examination, as the dissent surmises, it should not now be granted a second opportunity to do so.
¶ 3 The defense did have an opportunity to explore the literature to challenge the basis of Dr. Shane’s opinion; it chose not to do so.