Legal Opinion
A. McD. v. Rosen
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Decided February 16, 1993No. 1344PublishedCited by 39 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
WIEAND, Judge:
In this appeal we are called upon to review a summary judgment entered in favor of a psychiatrist and a therapist because their former patient’s action for malpractice was barred by the two year statute of limitations. The patient contends that the trial court failed to make proper application of the discovery rule. We disagree and affirm.
The appellant, Alexis McDonald, 1 began treatment with Dr. John Nathaniel Rosen, a psychiatrist, in August, 1979. At that time she was complaining of various maladies, including colitis, depression and an unhappy marriage. She came under the…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- United States v. KubrickSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1983
- John Barren, an Incompetent, by His Guardian, Henrietta Barren v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
- Zeleznik v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Carns v. YinglingSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by39 opinions
- Dalrymple v. BrownSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
- Ingenito v. AC & S, INC.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- E.J.M. v. Archdiocese of PhiladelphiaSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1993
- Bigansky v. Thomas Jefferson University HospitalSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
- Haggart v. ChoSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.