Legal Opinion

Walsh v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 18, 2003PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice NIGRO.

The question presented in this appeal is whether the Commonwealth Court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss Fund (the “CAT Fund” or “Fund”), thereby (1) relieving the CAT Fund of liability for delay damages above and beyond its $1,000,000 statutory cap on liability, (2) permitting the CAT Fund to take a credit against its liability for security posted by the primary insurance carrier, and (3) relieving the CAT Fund of liability for post-judgment interest. For the following reasons, we affirm, except to the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Builders Supply Co. v. McCabeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
  2. Marks v. TasmanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
  3. Willet v. Pennsylvania Medical Catastrophe Loss FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Incollingo v. EwingSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  5. McClure v. Deerland Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Kinney-Lindstrom v. Medical Care Availability & Reduction of Error FundSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2013
  2. Caruso v. Medical Professional Liability Catastrophe Loss FundSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Kinney-Lindstrom Ex Rel. Lindstrom v. Medical Care Availability & Reduction of Error FundCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2009
  4. Osborne v. Neville, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County2004
  5. Caruso v. MEDICAL PROF. LIAB. CATASTROPHE LOSS FUNDSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2004

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API