noting “appellant must provide more than vague pronouncements” to qualify an expert under the MCARE Act, but remanding for further proceedings
How later courts described this case
- noting “appellant must provide more than vague pronouncements” to qualify an expert under the MCARE Act, but remanding for further proceedings
- when specific language is employed in one section of the statute and excluded from another, the language should not be implied where ex- eluded because the difference shows a contrary legislative intent
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CONCURRING OPINION BY
TODD, J.:
¶ 1 I join in the opinion of my esteemed colleague Judge Beck on behalf of the Majority. I write separately only to emphasize the troublesome application of the 5-year rule for expert testimony under 40 P.S. § 1303.512(b) to cases such as the present one. As the Majority notes (see Majority Op., at 1288 n. 4), delays in the pretrial phases of litigation, whether intentional or inadvertent, may have the result of rendering inadmissible expert testimony which, during pretrial proceedings, was admissible. The unfairness and substantial *1291 inefficiency of this result for a litigant who may have no control over a pretrial delay is of such a serious nature that I believe it warrants the renewed attention of the legislature.
¶ 2 HUDOCK and BECK, JJ. join.