# Jones v. Chidester

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 17, 1992 · 531 Pa. 31

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694560

## Case

- **Full name:** Billy JONES and Dorothy Jones, His Wife, Appellants, v. John H. CHIDESTER, M.D., Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 17, 1992
- **Citations:** 531 Pa. 31; 610 A.2d 964; 1992 Pa. LEXIS 369
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694560

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "[w]here competent medical authority is divided, a physician will not be held responsible if in the exercise of his judgment he followed a course of treatment advocated by a considerable number of recognized and respected professionals in his given area of experti…

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
While I join in the opinion, I vehemently disagree with the majority that the existence of two schools of medical thought may ever be a question of fact to be submitted to a jury. The *42 majority states that, “It then becomes a question for the jury to determine whether they believe that there are two legitimate schools of thought such that the defendant should be insulated from liability.” (Majority opinion at 41). It is the responsibility of the trial judge to determine in the first instance whether there are two schools of medical thought so that competent medical authority as to a course of treatment is divided. It is a question of law for the trial judge. It is not a question of fact. In all other respects, I agree with the majority’s analysis of the two schools of medical thought doctrine.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9694560. Public record. Not legal advice.