Legal Opinion

Foflygen v. R. ZEMEL, MD (PC)

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 23, 1992No. 517PublishedCited by 48 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

KELLY, Judge:

This is an appeal from a series of orders entered by the trial court granting the appellees’ various preliminary objections in the nature of demurrers to the appellant’s complaint. We quash in part and affirm in part.

The relevant facts and procedural history are as follows. The appellant, Janice A. Foflygen, read an article in the Pittsburgh Press concerning an operation known as a near total gastric diversion (“stomach stapling procedure”) to assist overweight people in the quest to lose weight. The appellant, who suffered from obesity, called upon one of the appellees, Dr.…

2Cases cited26 opinions

  1. Pugar v. GrecoSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
  2. Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Gray v. GrunnagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  4. Smith v. YoheSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1963
  5. Lasprogata v. QuallsSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by48 opinions

  1. Karlin v. IVF America, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1999
  2. Moses v. T.N.T. Red Star ExpressSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  3. Hart v. O'MALLEYSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1994
  4. Commonwealth v. HaywardSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. L.B. Foster Co. v. Charles Caracciolo Steel & Metal Yard, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001

43 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