Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wexler v. Hecht

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 5, 2007No. 29 EAP 2005Published

1Dissent

Justice CASTILLE,

dissenting.1

As framed by the Majority Opinion, the substantive issue before the Court today is whether, under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Act, (“MCARE Act” or “Act”), Act of March 20, 2002, P.L. 154, No. 13 (as amended *13440 P.S. §§ 1303.101-1303.910), “a podiatrist is competent to testify as an expert witness concerning the applicable standard of care in a medical malpractice action advanced against an orthopedic surgeon.” Majority Op. at 120, 928 A.2d at 974. However, in my view, there is a preliminary and controlling question of retroactivity: i.e.,…

2Cases cited28 opinions

  1. Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1949
  2. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  3. Laudenberger v. Port Auth. of AlleghenySupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
  4. Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Quinby v. Plumsteadville Family Practice, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006

23 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