Legal Opinion

Zieber v. Bogert

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 19, 2001No. 843PublishedCited by 29 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

ZAPPALA, Justice.

This appeal presents the issue of whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may introduce, as an element of damages, evidence regarding his increased risk of recurrence of cancer. The Superior Court held that evidence of the future effects of a disease already contracted, such as the probability of metastasis of cancer, is a proper consideration for the jury when awarding damages. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

On June 6, 1992, Robert Zieber experienced severe abdominal pain. His wife, a resident in obstetrics and gynecology, felt what appeared to be…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  2. Simmons v. Pacor, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  3. Gradel v. InouyeSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1980
  4. Marinari v. Asbestos Corp., Ltd.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  5. Commonwealth v. MinerdSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000

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

3Cited by29 opinions

  1. Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. AyersSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  2. Eichman v. McKeonSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2003
  3. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. DenglerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. McNeil v. JordanSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2006
  5. Castellani, R., Aplts. v. Scranton TimesSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015

24 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