# Weiner v. Fisher

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · April 1, 2005 · 2005 Pa. Super. 118

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732201

## Case

- **Full name:** Shirley C. WEINER, as Executrix of the Estate of Leon J. Weiner, and Shirley C. Weiner, Individually and in Her Own Right, Appellant, v. Robert S. FISHER, M.D., Appellee
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** April 1, 2005
- **Citations:** 2005 Pa. Super. 118; 871 A.2d 1283; 2005 Pa. Super. LEXIS 670
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Todd
- **Judges:** Hudock, Todd, Beck
- **Cited by:** 40 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/9732201

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting “appellant must provide more than vague pronouncements” to qualify an expert under the MCARE Act, but remanding for further proceedings

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9732201. Public record. Not legal advice.