According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff reported to an eye surgeon for an evaluation to be fitted with cataract lenses. The Plaintiff alleged that the doctor evaluated both of the Plaintiff’s eyes but did not prescribe glasses. Instead, the doctor allegedly grabbed the Plaintiff by the shirt telling him that he needed laser treatment immediately because his eyes were going to blow up. The doctor then allegedly looked up at the ceiling and laughed.
As noted, the court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. The court agreed with the Defendants that the Plaintiff’s failure to retain a medical expert was fatal to some of the claims presented.
The court also ruled that there was a genuine factual dispute as to whether or not the Plaintiff had consented to the laser procedure.
The court additionally noted that, while the Plaintiff was required to have produced expert medical testimony to prove that he sustained physical harm and suffering due to the alleged medical battery, the Plaintiff did not need an expert to support his claim for emotional distress as, in the court’s eyes, jurors could understand the emotional trauma of being subjected to a medical procedure without consent. As such, the Plaintiff’s emotional trauma claim was allowed to proceed.
The court otherwise ruled that the Plaintiff did need to produce an expert to support his lack of informed consent claim in order that the jury may be educated on what would constitute informed consent in a medical setting.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Sept. 23, 2021).