PDR in conjunction with expert testimony may be used to established the standard of care; PDR used alone establishes only a standard of care
How later courts described this case
- PDR in conjunction with expert testimony may be used to established the standard of care; PDR used alone establishes only a standard of care
- pharmacologist with M.D. degree but not licensed to practice medicine in any state not incompetent to establish standard of care in medical malpractice case based on improper prescription of drugs
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Dissenting Opinion Upon Denial Of Rehearing
JUSTICE BARRY, dissenting:
I am compelled to dissent from the majority decision to deny plaintiff's petition for rehearing. I believe plaintiff’s arguments for rehearing have sufficient merit to be given full consideration by this court. Although plaintiff’s petition is entitled “Petition for Rehearing,” she is actually seeking a first hearing on review of the issue which the majority found determinative in this case.
Plaintiffs assertions include that the majority has misstated the testimony of several of the doctor-witnesses, that neither party requested a new trial on appeal, and that only one of four alleged acts of defendants’ negligence involved the prescription of estrogen and birth control pills. These assertions present considerations that were ignored by the majority in its opinion disposing of the merits of this appeal.
Another significant issue raised by plaintiff is her claim that her constitutional right to due process of law has been infringed upon by this decision construing Supreme Court Rule 366 to permit reversal on a theory not raised by the parties in either the trial court or before this court.
In sum, since the majority has granted relief not sought on grounds not argued, I would prefer to see the parties have some opportunity to argue their respective positions regarding the issues deemed dispositive by the majority — even at this late date in the proceedings.